Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as David Perez-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-08
Citations: 235 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 06-41598
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as David Perez-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 280–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as David Perez-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41598
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 8, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District 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 DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, David Perez-Hernandez (Perez) seeks to preserve for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because this court's post-Booker rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker. Perez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court's methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. In light of Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), the issue remains foreclosed. Perez also raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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).