Case ID: f-appx_245/html/0349-01.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. Jose Gerardo PASILLAS-BONILLA, also known as Gerardo Pasillas-Bonilla, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50825
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 11, 2007.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before DEMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Gerardo Pasillas-Bonilla (Pasillas) appeals his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to import more than 50 kilograms of marijuana, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana, and illegal reentry after deportation.

Pasillas first challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions. Pasillas’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 he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court now would overrule Almendarez-Torres, 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, 546 U.S. 919, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Pasillas properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of AlmendarezTorres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Pasillas also argues that the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 by not making a specific finding on his objection to an enhancement for his role in the offense. Rule 32 requires the sentencing court to make findings regarding controverted facts in the PSR, or to state that those facts will not be taken into account at sentencing. The district court satisfied the mandate of Rule 32 when it overruled the objection and adopted the PSR because the findings in the PSR were “so clear” as not to leave this court to “second guess” the basis for the district court’s decision. United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225,1230-31 (5th Cir.1994).

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.