Court Opinion

ID: 41978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:13:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:40.744317
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                  April 11, 2006

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 05-40787
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAURICIO SOLORZANO-CRUZ,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 1:05-CR-10-ALL
                      --------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Mauricio Solorzano-Cruz appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence for attempted illegal reentry into the United States

after a previous deportation.    He 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).    As the Government has not invoked the waiver

provisions in the plea agreement, the waivers are not binding on

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40787
                                -2-

Solorzano-Cruz.   See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226,

230-31 (5th Cir. 2006).

     Solorzano-Cruz’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although Solorzano-Cruz 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).

Solorzano-Cruz 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.