Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benigno POZOS-SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-21
Citations: 110 F. App'x 455
Docket Number: No. 04-40174
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benigno POZOS-SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 455–455

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benigno POZOS-SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40174.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 21, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Arturo Villarreal, III, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Benigno Pozos-Santillan appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following a prior deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Pozos-Santillan argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Pozos-Santillan acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in 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). Pozos-Santillan's argument is foreclosed. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.