Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0414-02.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. David Inocencio DEL CARMAN-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-40956
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 22, 2010.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alfred H. Montelongo, Montelongo & Montelongo, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

David Inocencio Del Carman-Gomez appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court erroneously used his aggravated felony conviction to increase both his base offense level and his criminal history score. He also argues that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Because Del Car-man-Gomez did not raise these claims in the district court, plain error review applies. See Puckett v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Del Carman-Gomez’s double-counting argument is without merit because the Guidelines specifically state that a conviction used to increase an offense level may also be used in calculating a defendant’s criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment, (n.6); see also United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009). His argument regarding the constitutionality of § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007). Therefore, Del Carman-Gomez has not shown error, plain or otherwise. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.