Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin VILLARREAL-GONSALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 134 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 04-41388
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin VILLARREAL-GONSALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin VILLARREAL-GONSALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41388.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2005.
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, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Martin Villarreal-Gonsalez (Villarreal) appeals his conviction and sentence for being an alien unlawfully present in the United States after deportation following a prior aggravated felony conviction. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b).
For the first time on appeal, Villarreal argues that the district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, — - —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because Villarreal did not raise this issue in the district court, his argument is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005). Villarreal makes no showing, as required by Valenzuela-Quevedo, that the district court would likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme. Similarly, there is no indication from the district court's remarks at sentencing that it would have reached a different conclusion. Thus, Villarreal has not met his burden to show that the district court's imposition of a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. See Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733.
Villarreal also argues for the first time on appeal that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Villarreal acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).
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.