USA v. Gonzalez-Pardo
Filing
920060223
Opinion
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. 04-41141 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE NATIVIDAD GONZALEZ-PARDO, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-377-ALL -------------------Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Natividad Gonzalez-Pardo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court
sentenced Gonzalez to 15 months of imprisonment, based in part on a prior illegal reentry conviction. Gonzalez contends that his sentence is illegal under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory application of the United
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 04-41141 -2States Sentencing Guidelines. error. 2005). Gonzalez thus alleges a "Fanfan"
See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. In the district court, Gonzalez objected to his sentence
under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and the Government concedes that the issue is preserved and that it is subject to review for harmless error. The Government has not carried its burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court's error did not affect Gonzalez's sentence. See Walters, 418 F.3d at 464; United States We therefore
v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 285-86 (5th Cir. 2005).
vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker. 285-86. Gonzalez also contends that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Gonzalez's constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Gonzalez contends that Almendarez-Torres See Walters, 418 F.3d at 464; Pineiro, 410 F.3d at
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). Gonzalez properly concedes
that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and
No. 04-41141 -3circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?