United States v. Aguilera-Guerrero ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS        June 23, 2004
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-41713
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    SANTIAGO AGUILERA-GUERRERO,
    also known as Ernesto Rangel,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. M-03-CR-789-1
    --------------------
    Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Santiago Aguilera-Guerrero appeals the sentence imposed
    following his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the
    United States following deportation subsequent to an aggravated
    felony conviction, a violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    .     Aguilera
    raises two issues that he concedes are foreclosed, but he seeks
    to preserve them for further review.
    Aguilera argues for the first time on appeal that his prior
    conviction for possession of a controlled substance should not be
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-41713
    -2-
    considered an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).
    This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States
    v. Caicedo-Cuero, 
    312 F.3d 697
    , 705-711 (5th Cir. 2002),
    cert. denied, 
    538 U.S. 1021
     (2003).
    Also for the first time on appeal, Aguilera argues that
    the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v.
    New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000).     He concedes that this argument
    is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998), but states that he is raising it to preserve it for
    further review.    Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres.
    United States v. Hernandez-Avalos, 
    251 F.3d 505
    , 507 & n.1
    (5th Cir. 2001).   We must follow Almendarez-Torres until the
    Supreme Court overrules it.    
    Id.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-41713

Judges: Barksdale, Demoss, Clement

Filed Date: 6/24/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024