Court Opinion

ID: 47751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 23:29:06+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:50.869869
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 12, 2006

                                                         Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                 Clerk
                            No. 05-41761
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISAIS JIMENEZ-FLORES,
                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 5:05-CR-1432
                       --------------------

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Isais Jimenez-Flores (Jimenez) appeals the 46-month

sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to being found

unlawfully present in the United States following deportation,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   Jimenez’s only issue is the

constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than

elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41761
                                -2-

     Jimenez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although he 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).   Jimenez

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.

     For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.