Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alfredo ENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 04-41567
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alfredo ENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alfredo ENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41567.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Alfredo Enriquez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. Enriquez challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) and, additionally, the district court's application of the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.
Enriquez's constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Enriquez 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 AlmendarezTorres 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). Enriquez 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.
Enriquez also contends that the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines regime held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The sentencing transcript is devoid of evidence that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory regime, and, therefore, the Government has not borne its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court's error was harmless. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir.2005). Thus, Enriquez's sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. See id. at 466.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
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.