Court Opinion

ID: 44139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:05:12+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:53.671880
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
                       REVISED JUNE 22, 2006
                                                              June 21, 2006
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT              Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk

                            No. 05-41001
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAIME HERNANDEZ-MENDEZ, also known as Ramon Martinez-Mendez,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 5:05-CR-454-ALL
                      --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jamie Hernandez-Mendez appeals his guilty plea conviction

and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation.

Hernandez-Mendez 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).

     Hernandez-Mendez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41001
                                -2-

Although Hernandez-Mendez 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,

126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).   Hernandez-Mendez 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 AFFIRMED.