Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Humberto HAMILTON-REYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 126 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 04-20608
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Humberto HAMILTON-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Humberto HAMILTON-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-20608.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 20, 2005.
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, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Humberto Hamilton-Reyes was convicted on his guilty plea of illegal reentry into the United States, for which he was sentenced to serve 94 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. He contends that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He asserts further that he would be entitled to relief under Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), if Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), were overruled.
Hamilton-Reyes's argument concerning the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is, as he concedes, foreclosed. See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). Since Almendarez-Torres has not been overruled, Hamilton-Reyes is not entitled to relief under Blakely. See Dabeit, 281 F.3d at 984.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.