Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teodoro HIPOLITO-ALCANTAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-17
Citations: 145 F. App'x 910
Docket Number: No. 04-41507
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teodoro HIPOLITO-ALCANTAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 910–911

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teodoro HIPOLITO-ALCANTAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41507.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Teodoro Hipolito-Alcantar (Hipólito), appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted reentry into the United States following a prior aggravated felony conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b).
For the first time on appeal, Hipólito argues that the district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -,-- -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We review for plain error. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.2005). Hipólito makes no showing, as required by Martinez-Lugo, that the district court would likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme. Similarly, there is no indication from the district court's remarks at sentencing that it would have reached a different conclusion. Thus, Hipólito has not met his burden of persuasion to show that the district court's imposition of a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. See Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d at 601.
Hipólito also argues for the first time on appeal that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Hipólito acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).
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.