eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2006-03

United States v. Cruz , 170 F. App'x 339 ( 2006 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT                                March 9, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40958
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEONARDO ENRIQUE CRUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(1:04-CR-152-ALL)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leonardo Enrique Cruz appeals his guilty-plea conviction and
sentence   for   being     present    in   the   United     States     following
deportation. Cruz claims that the district court erred in applying
Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii) because transportation
of illegal aliens is not “alien smuggling”.               Cruz concedes this
claim is foreclosed by United States v. Solis-Campozano,
    312 F.3d 164
    , 167-68 (5th Cir. 2002), which held “alien smuggling offense”
includes the offense of transporting aliens within the United
States.    He raises this issue to preserve it for further review.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Cruz also claims the district court reversibly erred under
United States v. Booker,
    543 U.S. 220
    ,
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005) by
sentencing     him   pursuant       to     a    mandatory         application    of   the
sentencing     guidelines.         There        was   no    “Booker”     error    (Sixth
Amendment     violation)     because       the    only      enhancement     to   Cruz’s
sentence was for his prior conviction.                   See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at
756, 769.      Nevertheless, the district court committed “Fanfan”
error by sentencing Cruz pursuant to a mandatory guidelines system.
See United States v. Walters,
    418 F.3d 461
    , 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005).
A Fanfan error is not structural error.                          See United States v.
Martinez-Lugo,
    411 F.3d 597
    , 601 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
    126 S. Ct. 464
     (2005).
The Government concedes that Cruz preserved his Fanfan claim.
Accordingly, we review for harmless error beyond a reasonable
doubt.     See Walters,
    418 F.3d at 464
    .              There is no evidence in the
record that the district court would have imposed the same sentence
had the guidelines been advisory.                     Accordingly, we vacate the
sentence and remand for resentencing.
Cruz   contends      that    the   “felony”          and    “aggravated    felony”
provisions of
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional
on their face, and as applied in his case, in the light of Apprendi
v.   New   Jersey,
    530 U.S. 466
           (2000).       Cruz’s    constitutional
challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
    523 U.S. 224
    , 235 (1998).             Although Cruz contends that Almendarez-
2
Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme
Court   would   overrule   it   in   the   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).                Cruz
properly concedes that his claim is foreclosed; he raises it to
preserve it for further review.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; AND REMANDED FOR
RESENTENCING
3