Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rolando RODRIGUEZ-PINON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 187 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 05-41693
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rolando RODRIGUEZ-PINON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rolando RODRIGUEZ-PINON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41693.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 20, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Us Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rolando Rodriguez-Pinon (Rodriguez) challenges his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rodriguez's contention that his prior burglary conviction in Texas does not qualify as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) lacks merit in light of United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1398, 164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006). His contention that this court did not apply the proper categorical analysis of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), is no more than an argument that Garcia-Mendez was wrongly decided. Garcia-Mendez resolved the issue raised in this case, and one panel of this court may not ignore the precedent set by a prior panel. United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.1999). Rodriguez's conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) and provided a basis for the district court's 16-level enhancement of his offense level.
Rodriguez also contends 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). His 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 Rodriguez 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). Rodriguez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
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.