Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor REYES-CARMONA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-08
Citations: 133 F. App'x 959
Docket Number: No. 04-51114
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor REYES-CARMONA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 959–960

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor REYES-CARMONA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-51114.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 8, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Victor Reyes-Carmona appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Reyes-Carmona first argues that the district court erred by sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines scheme. Because he did not raise any constitutional challenge in the district court to the computation of his sentence, we review for plain error. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). We agree that the district court erred when it sentenced him pursuant to a mandatory guidelines system. Id. at 750, 768-69. Nevertheless, as the record does not suggest that the district court would have imposed a different sentence had it been aware that the sentencing guidelines are advisory, ReyesCarmona has not met his burden of establishing plain error. See United States v. Valenzuelar-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-34 (5th Cir.2005).
Reyes-Carmona also argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. Reyes-Carmona acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve this argument for further review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348. This court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres unless the Supreme Court overrules it. See United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir.2001).
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.