Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Andres ROMERO-DERAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-17
Citations: 141 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 04-41071
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Andres ROMERO-DERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 339–339

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Andres ROMERO-DERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41071.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant>-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Andres Romero-Deras ("Romero") appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation.
Romero argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Romero's argument concerning the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is, as he concedes, foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 22, 2005) (No. 05-5469).
Romero also contends that his sentence is improper under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He concedes that the plain-error standard of review applies. Romero has not shown that the district court would have imposed a different sentence under an advisory sentencing scheme. Thus, Romero has not shown plain error in connection with his sentence. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir.2005).
The judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.