Court Opinion

ID: 45717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:43:18+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.602471
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                  August 25, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41393
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEFINA MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ,
                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 7:05-CR-419-ALL
                       --------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Josefina Martinez-Martinez appeals her guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   She challenges the

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

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than

as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light

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

     Martinez’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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41393
                                -2-

Although Martinez 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).   Martinez

properly concedes that her argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but she raises it here

to preserve it for further review.

     AFFIRMED.