Court Opinion

ID: 46374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:57:33+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.219413
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                 October 25, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40829
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL ANGEL ASCENCIO-CONTRERAS, also known as Rafael
Acencio,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 7:04-CR-1078-ALL
                       --------------------

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Rafael Angel Ascencio-Contreras appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   He challenges the

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

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than

as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light

of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40829
                                -2-

     Ascencio-Contreras’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed

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

Although Ascencio-Contreras 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).   Ascencio-Contreras 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.