Court Opinion

ID: 43779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:00:33+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:04.961717
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                  June 21, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-20654
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL SEGOVIA-SALINAS, also known as Juan Carlos Pineda,
also known as Miguel Angel Esquibel, also known as Miguel Angel
Salinas,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 4:05-CR-47-ALL
                       --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Miguel Angel Segovia-Salinas (Segovia) appeals his

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation

following a conviction for an aggravated felony.    Segovia was

sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of

supervised release.

     He asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional.      Segovia’s

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20654
                                -2-

constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

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

contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided 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).   Segovia 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.