United States v. Yanez-Govea ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 October 21, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 04-40078
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JAVIER YANEZ-GOVEA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. L-03-CR-1382-ALL
    --------------------
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Javier Yanez-Govea pleaded guilty to one count of illegal
    reentry into the United States, and the district court sentenced
    him to 18 months’ imprisonment and a three-year term of
    supervised release.   Yanez contends that the district court erred
    by characterizing his prior state felony conviction for
    possession of a controlled substance as an “aggravated felony”
    for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).    This issue, however,
    is foreclosed by our precedent.   See United States v. Caicedo-
    Cuero, 
    312 F.3d 697
    , 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40078
    -2-
    U.S. 1021 (2003); United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 
    130 F.3d 691
    ,
    693-94 (5th Cir. 1997).
    Yanez contends that 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b) is unconstitutional
    because it does not require the fact of a prior felony or
    aggravated felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and
    proved beyond a reasonable doubt.   As Yanez concedes, this
    argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998).   See United States v. Dabeit, 
    231 F.3d 979
    , 984
    (5th Cir. 2000).
    The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.