United States v. Oviedo-Medina , 169 F. App'x 190 ( 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 23, 2006
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-40193
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JUAN CARLOS OVIEDO-MEDINA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:04-CR-1615-ALL
    --------------------
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Juan Carlos Oviedo-Medina appeals his sentence under
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
     for illegal reentry into the United States after
    having been deported.    Oviedo-Medina asserts that the district
    court erred in concluding that his prior state felony conviction
    for simple possession of cocaine was an “aggravated felony” for
    purposes of § 1326(b).    Oviedo-Medina’s argument is foreclosed by
    circuit precedent.   See United States v. Rivera, 
    265 F.3d 310
    ,
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40193
    -2-
    312-13 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 
    30 F.3d 691
    , 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997).
    Oviedo-Medina also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated
    felony” provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional.   This
    challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
    
    523 U.S. 224
    , 235 (1998).   Although Oviedo-Medina 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).    Oviedo-
    Medina 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.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-40193

Citation Numbers: 169 F. App'x 190

Filed Date: 2/23/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014