Court Opinion

ID: 44307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:07:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:01.471270
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. 05-41459
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OLEGARIO ESQUIVEL-HUERTA,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 1:05-CR-245-ALL
                       --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Olegario Esquivel-Huerta appeals his guilty plea conviction

and sentence for being unlawfully present in the United States

after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction.         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), and he contends that

his challenge is not barred by the appeal-waiver provision in his

plea agreement.   The Government seeks enforcement of the waiver

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41459
                                -2-

provision.   We assume, arguendo only, that the waiver does not

bar the instant appeal.

     Esquivel-Huerta’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although Esquivel-Huerta 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).

Esquivel-Huerta 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.