Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Alberto DEL BAL-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-25
Citations: 251 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 06-41402
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Alberto DEL BAL-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 968–969

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Alberto DEL BAL-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41402
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mario Alberto Del Bal-Villegas appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. Del Bal-Villegas contends that his sentence is unreasonable because this court's post-Booker rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory sentencing guideline regime condemned in Booker. This argument is foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Del Bal-Villegas challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is "fully foreclosed from further debate." United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government's motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).