Court Opinion

ID: 40278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 20:42:21+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:29.445198
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                December 14, 2005

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40818
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE DE JESUS MARTIN-GOMEZ, also known as Jose Gomez-Martin,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 1:05-CR-26-ALL
                       --------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jose De Jesus Martin-Gomez appeals his sentence under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) for illegal reentry into the United

States after having been deported following conviction for an

aggravated felony.   Martin-Gomez asserts that the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are

unconstitutional.

     Martin-Gomez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40818
                               -2-

Although Martin-Gomez 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).   Martin-Gomez 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.

     Given the above disposition, we do not decide whether

Martin-Gomez’s appeal is barred by the waiver provision of his

plea agreement.

     The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.