Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramiro MATA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-18
Citations: 242 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 05-41302
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramiro MATA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 253–253

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramiro MATA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41302
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 18, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Arturo Villarreal, III, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ramiro Mata-Ortiz (Mata) appeals following his guilty plea to being illegally present in the United States following a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The district court increased Mata's base offense level by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) because it determined that Mata's prior conviction in Tennessee for reckless aggravated assault was a crime of violence. Mata argues that the enhancement was improper because the Tennessee offense is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of aggravated assault. Mata's argument is unavailing in light of our decision in United States v. Mungia-Portillo, 484 F.3d 813, 816-17 (5th Cir.2007).
In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Mata also 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. This court has held that this issue is "fully foreclosed from further debate." United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.