Court Opinion

ID: 41286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:01:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.709776
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 23, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40965
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO ALBERTO REYES-NAJERA,
                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 1:05-CR-155-ALL
                      --------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Ricardo Alberto Reyes-Najera (Reyes) appeals his conviction

and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) for being found unlawfully

present in the United States after having been deported following

his conviction for an aggravated felony.   Reyes asserts that the

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

unconstitutional.   We need not decide the applicability of the

waiver provisions in this case because the issue that Reyes

raises is foreclosed.

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40965
                                -2-

     Reyes’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although Reyes 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).   Reyes 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.