Court Opinion

ID: 41305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:01:57+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.109613
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                February 24, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41082
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LORENZO MACIAS-LEON,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 1:05-CR-116-1
                      --------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Lorenzo Macias-Leon (Macias) appeals the 27-month sentence

he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal

reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.     He asserts that the

“felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of § 1326(b) are

facially unconstitutional.

     The constitutional issue raised by Macias is foreclosed by

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

Although Macias contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41082
                                -2-

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).   Macias 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.