Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Manuel MACIAS-CRUZ, also known as Juan Manuel Macias, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 236 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 06-20829
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Manuel MACIAS-CRUZ, also known as Juan Manuel Macias, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 236
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Manuel MACIAS-CRUZ, also known as Juan Manuel Macias, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-20829
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Sarny K. Khalil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Manuel Macias-Cruz was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported and was sentenced to serve 45 months in prison. Macias-Cruz contends that our rulings giving a presumption of reasonableness to guidelines sentences effectively reinstate mandatory guidelines sentencing and render his sentence unreasonable as a matter of law. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but he raises it to preserve it for further review. The argument fails in light of the decision in Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-66, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Macias-Cruz also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 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. Macias-Cruz'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 it 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.2005); see also Ran-gel-Reyes v. United States, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2873, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir.2007). Macias-Cruz 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.
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.