Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto HERNANDEZ-LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-27
Citations: 169 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 04-41004
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto HERNANDEZ-LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto HERNANDEZ-LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41004.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 27, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Mark Michael Dowd, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alberto Hernandez-Lozano (Hernandez) appeals his conviction and the 41-month sentence that was imposed for his guilty plea to a charge of being found in the United States following removal, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Hernandez's constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Hernandez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule AlmendarezTorres 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 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). Hernandez 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. Accordingly, Hernandez's conviction is affirmed.
Hernandez asserts that his sentence must be vacated because he was sentenced pursuant to mandatory Sentencing Guidelines in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He asserts that the error in his case is structural and is insusceptible to harmless error analysis. Contrary to Hernandez's contention, we have previously rejected this specific argument. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir.2005).
Hernandez contends that the Government cannot show that the error that occurred at his sentencing was harmless. The Government concedes that Hernandez preserved his claim of error. We review Hernandez's challenge to his sentence for harmless error under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). See Walters, 418 F.3d at 463. Nothing in the record demonstrates and the Government has not shown that the district court would not have imposed a different sentence under advisory Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Hernandez's sentence is vacated, and his case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
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.