Court Opinion

ID: 45735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:43:42+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.983443
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 28, 2006

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 05-41585
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ALBERTO CANALES-MATUTE,
                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 1:05-CR-468-ALL
                      --------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jose Alberto Canales-Matute appeals his guilty plea

conviction and sentence for being unlawfully found in the United

States after deportation following an aggravated felony

conviction.    He challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony

convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).    The Government contends that

Canales-Mutate’s challenge is barred by the appeal-waiver

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41585
                                -2-

provision in his plea agreement.   The Government seeks

enforcement of the waiver provision.

     We assume, arguendo only, that the waiver does not bar the

instant appeal.   Canales-Matute’s constitutional challenge is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998).   Although Canales-Matute 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).   Canales-Matute 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.