Court Opinion

ID: 45691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:42:34+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.243313
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                 August 25, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40801
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GILMAN ARGUETA-FERNANDEZ,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 1:04-CR-973-ALL
                      --------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Gilman Argueta-Fernandez appeals his conviction and sentence

for unlawful presence in the United States after deportation

following an aggravated felony conviction.    Argueta-Fernandez

argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of

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

     Argueta-Fernandez’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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40801
                                -2-

Although Argueta-Fernandez 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).

Argueta-Fernandez 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.

     AFFIRMED.