Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardino MENDOZA-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-31
Citations: 204 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 06-50211
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardino MENDOZA-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 394–394

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardino MENDOZA-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50211
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 31, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bernardino Mendoza-Galvan (Mendoza) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and the 41-month sentence imposed for illegally reentering the United States after removal. Mendoza argues that his sentence is unreasonable and that it exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense charged in his indictment.
A sentence, such as Mendoza's, "within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable." United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Mendoza argues that the district court failed to consider the mitigating evidence he presented and misweighed the guidelines range. However, Mendoza has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005).
Mendoza also argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) offense charged in his 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.
Mendoza'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). Mendoza 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.