Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Luis RICO-SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-27
Citations: 271 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 07-51131
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Luis RICO-SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 430–430

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Luis RICO-SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-51131
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 27, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luis Rico-Serrano (Rico) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Rico argues on appeal that his above-guidelines sentence of 30 months of imprisonment was unreasonable because the district court incorrectly applied the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when it improperly focused on his prior offense and did not consider the specific circumstances underlying his prior offense. Although the district court imposed a sentence that was substantially higher than the guidelines range, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rico because it properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and provided sufficiently detailed reasons for arriving at the sentence imposed. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 812-13 (5th Cir.2008). Accordingly, Rico has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 594, 596-97.
In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Rico also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). 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.