Court Opinion

ID: 45657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:42:01+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:27.839892
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. 05-21101
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO LOPEZ-CHAVEZ, also known as Ricardo Migul Chavez,
also known as Ricardo Lopez-Chavez, also known as Ricardo
Miguel Chavez,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 4:05-CR-156
                      --------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Arturo Lopez-Chavez (Lopez) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry of a deported alien

following an aggravated felony conviction.    Lopez argues that the

“felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional.

     Lopez’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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-21101
                                -2-

Although Lopez 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).   Lopez 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.