Court Opinion

ID: 40277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 20:42:21+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:29.430456
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                December 14, 2005

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                           No. 05-40806
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR RAMON BONILLA-CHAVEZ,
                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                   USDC No. 1:04-CR-1009-ALL
                      --------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Victor Ramon Bonilla-Chavez (“Bonilla”) appeals his guilty

plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry 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).       To the

extent that Bonilla’s challenge to the constitutionality of

8 U.S.C. § 1326 is construed as a challenge to his conviction, it

is not precluded by the terms of his appellate-waiver provision.

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40806
                                -2-

     Bonilla’s constitutional challenge, however, is foreclosed

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

Although Bonilla 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).   Bonilla

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.