Court Opinion

ID: 44296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:07:25+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:12.364792
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. 05-41370
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDWIN JOSE CASTELLANOS,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 7:05-CR-292-ALL
                      --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Edwin Jose Castellanos appeals his guilty-plea conviction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b).    He asserts that the “felony”

and “aggravated felony” provisions of the statute cause it to be

unconstitutional on its face and as applied in his case.

Castellanos’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although Castellanos 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

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41370
                               -2-

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).   Castellanos 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.