Court Opinion

ID: 57011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 01:58:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:15.849529
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                    FILED
                                                                 December 12, 2007
                                No. 07-40151
                             Conference Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                            Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ

                                            Defendant-Appellant

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 1:06-CR-558-1

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      Carlos Antonio Rodriguez-Rodriguez (Rodriguez) appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for being illegally present in the United States following
deportation. He argues that his sentence is unreasonable as a matter of law
because this court’s use of a presumption of reasonableness for sentences
imposed within the properly calculated guidelines range effectively reinstates
the mandatory guidelines regime struck down in United States v. Booker, 543

      *
      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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-40151

U.S. 220 (2005). This argument is foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007).
      In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Rodriguez
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. This court has held that this issue is
“fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492
F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).
      The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          2