Case ID: f-appx_254/html/0347-01.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. Jorge Alberto CORDOVA-BARRAZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10527
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 13, 2007.
    Juan Carlos Rodriguez, U.S. District Court, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Charles M. Bleil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jorge Alberto Cordova-Barraza pleaded guilty to one charge of illegal reentry into the United States, and the district court sentenced him to serve 46 months in prison. Cordova-Barraza appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court plainly erred by determining that his prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) was for a drug trafficking offense and by sentencing him in accordance with this determination. Cordova-Barraza argues that his prior conviction does not qualify as a drug trafficking offense as that term is used in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). We disagree. A comparison of the statute and Guideline at issue shows that a conviction under § 841(a)(1) qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). See § 841(a)(1), § 2L1.2, comment, (n l(B)(iv)). Cordova-Barraza’s argument to the contrary is unavailing.

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Cordova-Barraza challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.