United States v. Reyna-Veloz
United States v. Reyna-Veloz
Opinion
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. 05-40627 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EPIGMENEO REYNA-VELOZ, also known as Pedro Paz-Rodriguez,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-1067-ALL --------------------
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Epigmeneo Reyna-Veloz was convicted of one charge of illegal
reentry into the United States and sentenced to serve 30 months
in prison and a two-year term of supervised release. He argues
that the district court erred by determining that his prior Texas
felony conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of
violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). This argument is
unavailing. See United States v. Garcia-Mendez,
420 F.3d 454,
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-40627 -2-
456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Dec. 15,
2005)(No. 05-8542).
Reyna-Veloz’s constitutional challenge to
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)
is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235(1998). Although Reyna-Veloz 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). Reyna-Veloz
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.
Reyna-Veloz has shown no error in the judgment of the
district court. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished