Case ID: f-appx_258/html/0661-01.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. Pedro SALAZAR-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40057
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 12, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s, Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Pedro Salazar-Garcia was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported and was sentenced to serve 70 months in prison. He contends that our rulings giving a presumption of reasonableness to guidelines sentences effectively reinstate mandatory guidelines sentencing and render his sentence unreasonable as a matter of law. Salazar-Garcia’s arguments concerning this court’s presumption of reasonableness are foreclosed by both this court’s caselaw, see United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006), and the Supreme Court’s decision in Rita v. United States, — U.S. -,---, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-66, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Salazar-Garcia challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 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), cert. denied — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.