Court Opinion

ID: 44310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:08:20+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:04.095069
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                  June 21, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41470
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN GOMEZ-REYES,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 7:05-CR-388-ALL
                      --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Juan Gomez-Reyes (Gomez) pleaded guilty to being found

unlawfully in the United States following deportation and was

sentenced to a 46-month term of imprisonment and to a two-year

period of supervised release.   Gomez has appealed his conviction

and sentence and contends that the felony and aggravated felony

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional on their

face and as applied to him.   Gomez’s constitutional challenge is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41470
                                -2-

235 (1998).   Although Gomez contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres, 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).   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.

     AFFIRMED.