Case ID: f-appx_230/html/0447-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Baldemar Campuzano NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-11262
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 7, 2007.
    Bret E. Helmer, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Baldemar Navarro appeals his guilty-plea conviction of and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence is unreasonable and, additionally, a denial of due process and equal protection because it is longer than similarly situated defendants who are sentenced in districts with “fast-track” sentencing programs. His contention that sentencing disparities created by fast-track programs rendered his sentence unreasonable is foreclosed by United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 682 (5th Cir.2006), pet. for cert. filed (Nov. 13, 2006) (No. 06-7792). Moreover, he has not established under plain error review that restricting the fast-track program to only certain geographic locations results in due process and equal protection violations. See United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 309, 166 L.Ed.2d 232 (2006).

Navarro 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. That constitutional issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Navarro contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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.2005). See Rangel-Reyes v. United States, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2873, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006). Navarro properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Navarro contends that the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1) by failing to inform him of the “aggravated felony” provision of 1326(b)(2). He concedes that this issue is also foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres.

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.