Court Opinion

ID: 41897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:12:22+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:33.005866
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                    April 12, 2006

                                                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk
                              No. 05-40603
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CALIXTO SILVA-ESPINOZA,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 5:04–CR-2089-1
                       --------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Calixto Silva-Espinoza (Silva) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following

deportation.   Silva argues that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

     Silva’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although Silva contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40603
                                -2-

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, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).   Silva

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 judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.