Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodimiro MURILLO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-28
Citations: 196 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 06-50240
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodimiro MURILLO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 280–281

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodimiro MURILLO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50240.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 28, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodimiro Murillo-Torres appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 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.
Murillo-Torres'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 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). Murillo-Torres 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.
Murillo-Torres also contends that the sentence imposed in his case is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)'s objectives. After considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced Murillo-Torres to a 41-month term of imprisonment. Murillo-Torres's sentence fell at the lowest end of his properly calculated advisory guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir.2006). Murillo-Torres has failed to rebut that presumption. See id.
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.