Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo LOPEZ-NINO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-06
Citations: 169 F. App'x 861
Docket Number: No. 04-41309
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo LOPEZ-NINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 861–862

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo LOPEZ-NINO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41309.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 6, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arturo Lopez-Nino appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence should be vacated and remanded because the district court sentenced him under the mandatory guidelines scheme held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
The district court committed "Fanfan" error by sentencing Lopez-Nino pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir.2005). Although LopezNino contends that such error is structural, this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See id. at 463.
The Government concedes that LopezNino preserved his Fanfan claim. As such, this court reviews the claim for harmless error. See id. at 464. There is no indication in the record that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had the guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing in accordance with Booker.
Lopez-Nino also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His 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 Lopez-Nino contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule AlmendarezTorres 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 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). Lopez-Nino 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. Accordingly, Lopez-Nino's conviction is AFFIRMED.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
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.