Court Opinion

ID: 44280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:07:05+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:12.090226
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 20, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41328
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEONEL FLORES-HUERTA,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 5:05-CR-399-ALL
                       --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Leonel Flores-Huerta (Flores) appeals following his guilty

plea to a charge of illegally reentering the United States after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.    Flores argues, for

the first time on appeal, that the district court misapplied the

Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony

conviction for possession of cocaine as an “aggravated felony”

for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).    Flores’s argument is

unavailing in light of circuit precedent.     See United States v.

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41328
                                -2-

Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997).    Flores

argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome

v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943).    Having preceded

Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case

explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.”     See

United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

     Flores also challenges for the first time on appeal the

constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).   Flores’s constitutional challenge

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

224, 235 (1998).   Although Flores 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).   Flores 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.