Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Robert GALICIA-PENA, also known as Jose Roberto Galicia-Pena, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-17
Citations: 141 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 05-50048
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Robert GALICIA-PENA, also known as Jose Roberto Galicia-Pena, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Robert GALICIA-PENA, also known as Jose Roberto Galicia-Pena, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50048.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for-Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Robert Galicia-Pena ("Galicia") appeals following his conviction in a bench trial for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Galicia argues that the district court committed reversible plain error by increasing the maximum authorized Guidelines sentence based on facts neither admitted nor found by a jury, and by imposing a sentence under á mandatory Guidelines scheme. Galicia correctly concedes that he cannot carry his burden of showing that the district court's error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733-34 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).
Galicia also argues that because his indictment did not allege a prior felony conviction, he was subject to a maximum sentence of two years under U.S.C. § 1326(a). He correctly acknowledges that his 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 a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.