Court Opinion

ID: 44287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:07:13+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:15.225052
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. 05-41340
                          Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN RICARDO MARTINEZ,
                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                         --------------------
             Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 2:05-CR-231-ALL
                         --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Martin Ricardo Martinez pleaded guilty to one count of

reentering the United States without permission after having been

deported.     Martinez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), under which

he was convicted, is unconstitutional.     The Government contends

that Martinez waived his right to appeal.       We need not decide the

applicability of the waiver in this case because the issue that

Martinez raises is foreclosed.

         Martinez’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C.

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41340
                                 -2-

§ 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).   Although Martinez 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

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.