Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0348-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Jose TORRES-DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40793
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 21, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Victor Jose Torres-Dominguez, Houston, TX, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Victor Jose Torres-Dominguez (Torres) appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues that the district court erred in determining that his 1991 New York conviction for attempted burglary was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). This argument, however, was inadequately briefed and is therefore waived. See United States v. Valles, 484 F.3d 745, 758 (5th Cir.2007).

Torres also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Torres contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.2005); see also Rangel-Reyes v. United States, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2873, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir.2007). Torres properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.