Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel GUEL-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-11
Citations: 176 F. App'x 472
Docket Number: No. 04-40862
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel GUEL-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 472–473

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel GUEL-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40862.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 11, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Isidro R. Alaniz, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gabriel Guel-Escobedo appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a deported alien. For the first time on appeal, Guel-Escobedo argues that the district court erred by sentencing him under the mandatory sentencing scheme held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), an argument that has been termed "Fanfan error." United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir.2005). He also contends that Fanfan error is structural in nature.
Fanfan error meets the first two prongs of the plain error analysis but is not structural in nature. United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 464, 163 L.Ed.2d 352 (2005). Because Guel-Escobedo has failed to demonstrate that the sentencing judge would have reached a different result if an advisory sentencing scheme had been utilized, his claim of Fan-fan error does not warrant relief. See id. at 601.
Guel-Escobedo'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 Guel-Escobedo contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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, 168 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Guel-Escobedo properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of AlmendarezTorres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment 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.