Court Opinion

ID: 46332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:56:56+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.733038
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. 05-21045
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERLIN ROLANDO LANZA-PAZ,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 4:04-CR-479
                      --------------------

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Erlin Rolando Lanza-Paz (Lanza) appeals following his guilty

plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation.      Lanza

argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of

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

     Lanza’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although Lanza contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-21045
                                -2-

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).   Lanza

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.