Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin VALLE-PERCHES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 225 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 06-51019
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin VALLE-PERCHES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin VALLE-PERCHES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-51019
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 24, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Valle-Perches (Valle-Perches) appeals his 87-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a).
The district court sentenced VallePerches within a properly calculated advisory guideline range. Such a sentence is given "great deference," and we infer that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Therefore, we conclude that Valle-Perches has failed to show that his sentence was unreasonable.
Valle-Perches argues, in light of Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 87-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in the indictment. He 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.
Valle-Perehes's constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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). Valle-Perches 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.
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.