Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier VILLELA-ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-17
Citations: 170 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 04-41282
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier VILLELA-ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier VILLELA-ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41282.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 17, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Javier Villela-Espinosa appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Villela claims the district court committed reversible error under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines (Fanfan error). The Government concedes that Villela has preserved this issue for appeal. Such error is not structural. United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005).
On the other hand, the Government has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Villela's sentence is vacated, and this case is remanded for resentencing.
Villela also asserts the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Villela's 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 Villela contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it in the light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such assertions on the basis that Almendarez-Torres 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). Villela concedes his assertion is foreclosed in the light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent; he raises it to preserve it for further review.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
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.