Court Opinion

ID: 46440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:58:32+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.322443
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. 05-41845
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SILVIO DUNEZ-DE GRANDE,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 1:05-CR-646-ALL
                      --------------------

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Silvio Dunez-De Grande appeals from his guilty-plea

conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by

being found in the United States without permission after

deportation.   He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), that the 70-month term of imprisonment imposed

in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for

the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment.    He challenges

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

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41845
                                -2-

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather

than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

     Dunez-De Grande’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although he 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).   Dunez-De

Grande 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.