Case ID: f-appx_203/html/0609-01.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. Roberto RAMIREZ-GUERRERO, also known as Roberto Ramirez, also known as Jose Isreal Herrera, also known as Roberto Rodrigo Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-20929
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 25, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leslie Donovan Banks, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Roberto Ramirez-Guerrero pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully reentering the United States after having been removed subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In his sole point of error on appeal, Ramirez-Guerrero 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 in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Ramirez-Guerrero’s 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 Ramirez-Guerrero contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Ramirez-Guerrero properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.