Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fidel PAREDES-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-03
Citations: 169 F. App'x 852
Docket Number: No. 04-41416
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fidel PAREDES-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 852–853

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fidel PAREDES-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41416.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 3, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mitchel Neurock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fidel Paredes-Chavez (Paredes) appeals from his sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation. Paredes contends that his sentence is unconstitutional under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because he was sen- fenced pursuant to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines regime.
The district court stated, however, that if the Guidelines had not applied, the court would have imposed the same sentence that Paredes received. Therefore, the Government has carried its burden of establishing that the sentencing error in Paredes's case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 464-66 (5th Cir.2005).
Paredes 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 Paredes contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres 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 AlmendarezTorres 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). Paredes 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.
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.