Court Opinion

ID: 44341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:11:14+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.500489
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. 05-41739
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HUGO HUMBERTO IBARRA-PEREZ, also known as
Hugo Ibarra-Perez,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 1:05-CR-565-ALL
                       --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Hugo Humberto Ibarra-Perez (Ibarra) appeals his guilty plea

conviction and sentence for reentry after deportation following a

conviction for an aggravated felony.   He contends that the

“felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional.   The Government does not seek to enforce

Ibarra’s appeal waiver; therefore, it is nonbinding.      See United

States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2006).

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41739
                                -2-

     Ibarra’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although Ibarra 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 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).   Ibarra 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.