Court Opinion

ID: 41260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:01:30+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:52.222194
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. 05-40896
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO TORRES-GONZALEZ,
                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                         --------------------
             Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 1:05-CR-148-ALL
                         --------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Alfredo Torres-Gonzalez (Torres) pleaded guilty to one count

of reentering the United States without permission after having

been deported.     Torres contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), under

which he was convicted, is unconstitutional.     The Government

contends that Torres waived his right to appeal.     We need not

decide the applicability of the waivers in this case because the

issue that Torres raises is foreclosed.

         Torres’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C.

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40896
                                 -2-

§ 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).   Although Torres 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).   Torres

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.