Court Opinion

ID: 41217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:01:08+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:35.038619
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 23, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40756
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NAUN MARTINEZ-FIGUEROA, also known as Nahum Martinez,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 1:04-CR-993-ALL
                      --------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Naun Martinez-Figueroa pleaded guilty to being found in the

United States after previous deportation and was sentenced to 37

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Martinez-Figueroa argues that the felony and aggravated felony

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.

Specifically, he argues that the viability of Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), is in doubt in light of

later Supreme Court cases.

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40756
                                -2-

     Martinez-Figueroa’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres.   Although Martinez-Figueroa 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).   Martinez-

Figueroa 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.