United States v. Gomez , 165 F. App'x 353 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 February 1, 2006
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 04-41691
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    EFRAIN GOMEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:04-CR-1044-ALL
    Before KING, GARWOOD and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Efrain Gomez appeals the sentence imposed following this
    guilty-plea conviction for illegal entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
    § 1326.   He argues first that the district court erred when, over
    his proper objection, it classified his prior state conviction as
    a drug-trafficking offense that warranted a 12-level enhancement
    under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B).
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
    As   the   Government      concedes,      Gomez     both    preserved    this
    contention below and is correct in his assertion that the district
    court   erred   in   applying    this       guidelines    enhancement      because
    California Health & Safety Code § 11352(a), the state statute under
    which Gomez was convicted, is worded so that some, but not all,
    violations of the statute constitute a drug-trafficking offense
    consistent    with   the   guidelines       definition,    and     the   documents
    introduced by the Government to support the enhancement indicated
    only that Gomez had been convicted of violating that state statute.
    See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 
    410 F.3d 268
    , 273-74 (5th Cir.),
    cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 298
    (2005); United States v. Gutierrez-
    Ramirez, 
    405 F.3d 352
    , 352-60 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 217
    (2005).     We reject the Government’s contention that this
    properly preserved error was harmless.                 The Government has not
    carried its burden in this respect because the record does not
    sufficiently indicate that the district court would have imposed
    the same sentence absent the guidelines error.                  See United States
    v. Ahmed, 
    324 F.3d 368
    , 374 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v.
    Waskom, 
    179 F.3d 303
    , 312 (5th Cir. 1999).
    Gomez argues that, in light of United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    (2005), the district court erred in sentencing him under
    a mandatory guidelines scheme.          The Government concedes the error
    and its proper preservation below, but contends it was harmless.
    However, the Government has not carried its burden in this respect.
    2
    Finally, Gomez challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. §
    1326(b)’s    treatment    of     prior       felony    and   aggravated   felony
    convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the
    offense that must be found by a jury in light of Apprendi v. New
    Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000).             This constitutional challenge is
    foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    , 235
    (1998).     Although     Gomez   contends       that    Almendarez-Torres   was
    incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would
    overrule Almendariz-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly
    rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendariz-Torres remains
    binding.    See 
    Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d at 276
    .
    We therefore AFFIRM Gomez’s conviction, but we VACATE his
    sentence and REMAND for resentencing consistent with this opinion
    and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Booker.
    3