Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-08
Citations: 205 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 06-50224
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 225–227

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50224
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 8, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Reynaldo Gonzalez-Gonzalez appeals his 70-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry following deportation. He contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to meet the objectives of § 3553(a)(2).
Gonzalez's sentence fell at the lowest end of his properly calculated advisory guideline range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Giving "great deference" to such a sentence, and recognizing that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a), we conclude that Gonzalez has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. See id.
Gonzalez challenges 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Gonzalez's constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Gonzalez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Gonzalez 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.
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.