Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LERMA-GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-06
Citations: 209 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 06-50149
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LERMA-GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LERMA-GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50149
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 6, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Alberto Lerma-Galindo (Lerma) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported previously. Lerma contends that the district court violated the law of the case doctrine on remand by again applying the crime of violence sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). He further contends that even if the district court's ruling was not error, his sentence is unreasonable.
The district court properly considered two different guidelines ranges, with and without the contested sentence enhancement, and determined that the particular facts of Lerma's case warranted a 48 month sentence. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706-07 (5th Cir.2006). The alternate non-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable considering the "case-specific factors" cited by the district court. See United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 528 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, it is unnecessary to address Lerma's argument regarding the imposition of the crime-of-violence sentence enhancement. See id. at 525.
Lerma also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His eonstitu tional 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 Lerma contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres 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 AlmendarezTorres 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). Lerma properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, and that he raises it here only to preserve it for further review.
Accordingly, 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.