Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago GONZALEZ-PENUELOS, also known as Santiago Perez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 225 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 06-41652
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago GONZALEZ-PENUELOS, also known as Santiago Perez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 325–325

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago GONZALEZ-PENUELOS, also known as Santiago Perez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41652
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 2, 2007.
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, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Santiago Gonzalez-Penuelos (Gonzalez) preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because this court's post-Booker rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker. Gonzalez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court's methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. Gonzalez also raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).