Court Opinion

ID: 41998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:13:57+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:01.229334
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                  April 11, 2006

                                                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk
                              No. 05-40827
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER CANTU-RODRIGUEZ,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                         --------------------
             Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 1:05-CR-103-ALL
                         --------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Javier Cantu-Rodriguez appeals following his guilty plea

conviction for illegal reentry into the United States.        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).    The Government seeks

enforcement of the waiver provision in Cantu-Rodriguez’s plea

agreement.     We decline to rule on the applicability of his waiver

provision because his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40827
                                -2-

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

Although Cantu-Rodriguez 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).   Cantu-Rodriguez 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.   Because Cantu-Rodriguez has shown no error in the

judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.