Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Eliud MOLINA-CANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-27
Citations: 249 F. App'x 330
Docket Number: No. 06-40008
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Eliud MOLINA-CANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 330–330

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Eliud MOLINA-CANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40008
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 27, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, 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 REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Molina-Cano appeals his guilty-plea conviction of and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. He argues that the district court erroneously construed his Texas conviction of aggravated assault as a crime of violence and incorrectly applied a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Our recent decision in United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199-201 (5th Cir.2007), renders Molina-Cano's argument unavailing.
In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Molina-Cano challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 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 court has held that that issue is "fully foreclosed from further debate." United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert, filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). Accord United States v. Galvan-Lozano, 242 Fed.Appx. 234, 234-35 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.