Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo CARILLO-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 87 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 03-40629
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo CARILLO-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo CARILLO-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40629.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Melissa J. Hinojosa-Garcia, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Rodolfo Carillo-Galvan appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Carillo-Galvan concedes that both of his appellate arguments are foreclosed. He raises the issues to preserve them for further review.
Carillo-Galvan argues that his prior state felony convictions for possession of a controlled substance were not "aggravated felonies" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) or 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1948, 155 L.Ed.2d 864 (2003).
Carillo-Galvan also argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Carillo-Galvaris argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).
Therefore, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.