Court Opinion

ID: 41279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:01:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.687748
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                February 24, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40943
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEOCADIO VELASQUEZ, also known as Leocadio Pecellin,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 2:05-CR-131-ALL
                      --------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Leocadio Velasquez appeals his guilty-plea conviction of

being found illegally in the United States after having

previously been deported.   Velasquez argues that the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2)

are unconstitutional both on their face and as applied.

Velasquez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-

Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).     Although

Velasquez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
                           No. 05-40943
                                -2-

and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000), 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,

126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).   Velasquez 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.

     The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.