## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3468

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Martin Espinoza-Naranjo, also known * [UNPUBLISHED] as George Gonzales, also known as * George Gonzalez, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 18, 2006 Filed: May 26, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Appellant Espinoza-Naranjo pleaded guiltyto illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U. S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The indictment alleged that this offense occurred subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction– possession of cocaine for sale–as described by 8 U. S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). The presentence investigation report (PSR) prepared by th e United States probation officer calculated a sixteen-level increase to th e base offense level of ei ght based upon the prior felony conviction. The suggested guideline se ntence in the PSR was seventy-seven to ninety-six months. Appellant objected to the suggested sixteen-level increase prior1 The Honorable Su san Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- to sentencing. The district court 1 adopted the recommendation set forth in the PSR, gave Appellant credit for time served in state prison, and imposed a forty-two month sentence of imprisonment. Citing Shepard , Booker , Blakely , and Apprendi , Appellant argues that the district court made findings of fact bya preponderance of the evidence when it enhanced Appellant's sentence based upon his alleged criminal history and that such factfinding violated his Sixth Amendment right to be judged by a jury of his peers, as well as his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Shepard v. United States , 544 U.S. 13 (2005); United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005); Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We are bound by our precedent in Un ited States v. Cerna-Salguero , 399 F.3d 887 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct. 2936 (2005), which clearly recognizes the Supreme Court's rejection of Appellant's arguments. "'Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. (quoting Apprendi 530 U.S. at 489-90). And, contrary to Appellant's argument, the Supreme Court has not overruled Apprendi nor Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Finally, Appellant's guilty plea to a section 1326(b)(2) offense precludes his arguments because pleading guilty to a violation of section 1326(b)(2) is tantamount to admitting that his removal was preceded bya conviction of an aggravated felony. "[I]n the case of any alien described in such subsection whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, such alien shall-3- be fined under such Title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) . We thus reject Appellant's constitutional challenges to his sentence, and affirm.

______________________________