Court Opinion

ID: 41917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:12:38+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:52.391684
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                  April 12, 2006

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 05-40638
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN ARISTIDES BENITEZ-DELGADO,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 1:04-CR-787-1
                      --------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Ruben Aristides Benitez-Delgado (Benitez) appeals his

conviction and 24-month sentence for illegal reentry by an alien

after deportation.   He argues that the provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New

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

     Benitez’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is

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

235 (1998).    Although Benitez contends that Almendarez-Torres was

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40638
                                -2-

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).

Benitez 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.

     Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.