Court Opinion

ID: 44320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:09:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.277334
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                   June 20, 2006

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 05-41519
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HILARIO ANALCO-ANALCO,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 2:05-CR-259-ALL
                      --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Hilario Analco-Analco (Analco) appeals his sentence under

8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry into the United States after

deportation.   Analco argues that the district court erred by

characterizing his prior state felony conviction for simple

possession of a controlled substance as an “aggravated felony”

for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).     Analco’s argument is

unavailing in light of circuit precedent.      See United States v.

Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997).       Analco

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41519
                                -2-

argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome

v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943).     Having preceded

Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case

explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.”     See

United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

     Analco argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional.    This challenge is

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

235 (1998).   Although Analco 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).     Analco 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.