Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Armando LEAL-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-25
Citations: 203 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 06-40014
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Armando LEAL-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Armando LEAL-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40014.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 25, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cesar Armando Leal-Rivera pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 28 months of imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. He now appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release.
Leal argues that the district court imposed a sentence above the statutory maxi mum. He contends that the top of the sentencing guidelines range found applicable by the district court, rather than the statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), governs the classification of his underlying felony for purposes of revocation of supervised release.
In United States v. Alfaro-Hernandez, 453 F.3d 280, 281-82 (5th Cir.2006), the court held that, in determining the statutory maximum penalty that can be imposed upon revocation of supervised release, the felony classification of the defendant's underlying offense was to be determined by statute and not by the Sentencing Guidelines. Leal acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Alfaro-Hemandez, but he wishes to preserve the argument for possible further Supreme Court review.
The sentence 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.