Court Opinion

ID: 48393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 23:39:58+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:19.634105
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                February 14, 2007

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 05-41496
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HIPOLITO M. PANIAGUA-MARAVILLA, also known as Martin
Chavez-Alejo,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 7:05-CR-406-ALL
                      --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Hipolito M. Paniagua-Maravilla (Paniagua) appeals his

guilty-plea conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b).        He

asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of

the statute cause it to be unconstitutional on its face and as

applied in his case.   Paniagua’s constitutional challenge is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998).    Although Paniagua contends that Almendarez-Torres

was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41496
                               -2-

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 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).   Paniagua 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.

     The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.