Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Prudenciano BELMONTES-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 236 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 07-40085
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Prudenciano BELMONTES-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 236
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Prudenciano BELMONTES-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-40085
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District Of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Prudenciano Belmontes-Castro (Belmontes) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence is unreasonable as a matter of law because this court's use of a presumption of reasonableness for sentences imposed within the properly calculated guidelines range effectively reinstates the mandatory guidelines regime struck down in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but he raises it to preserve it for further review. The argument fails as the Supreme Court has since affirmed the use of a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-66, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Belmontes's constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Belmontes 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.2005); see also Rangel-Reyes v. United States, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2873, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006); United States v. Pinedas-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir.2007). Belmontes 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.