Court Opinion

ID: 41271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:01:41+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:56.586998
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                February 24, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40917
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO ANAYA-GOMEZ, also known as Enrique Nava-Vasquez, also
known as Jose Hernandez,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 2:05-CR-128-ALL
                      --------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Pedro Anaya-Gomez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction

for illegal reentry into the United States.    He argues that the

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).    Anaya-Gomez’s

constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).   Although Anaya-Gomez

contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that

a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40917
                               -2-

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).   Anaya-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.

     Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.