Court Opinion

ID: 40256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 20:42:05+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:51.119583
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. 05-40408
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO ESPINOSA-IBARRA, also
known as Francisco Velos-Salas,
                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 5:04-CR-1510-ALL
                       --------------------

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

PER CURIAM:*

     Antonio Espinosa-Ibarra appeals the 46-month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry

following deportation.   Espinosa’s constitutional challenge to

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).   Although Espinosa contends

that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a

majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in

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

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40408
                                -2-

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).

Espinosa 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.