Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Antonio RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-12
Citations: 258 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 07-40151
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Antonio RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Antonio RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-40151
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 12, 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 REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Antonio Rodriguez-Rodriguez (Rodriguez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being illegally present in the United States following deportation. 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). This argument is foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Rodriguez 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 this issue is "fully foreclosed from further debate." United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.