Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marco Antonio MARTIN-PARADA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-07
Citations: 169 F. App'x 884
Docket Number: No. 04-41390
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marco Antonio MARTIN-PARADA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 884–885

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marco Antonio MARTIN-PARADA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41390.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 7, 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, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marco Antonio Martin-Parada (Martin) appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Martin'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 Martin 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). Martin 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.
Martin also argues that the district court reversibly erred under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The Government concedes that Martin has preserved this issue for appeal. The Government, however, has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Martin's sentence is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for resentencing.
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.