USA v. Martinez-Garcia
Filing
920060222
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 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-41276 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE MARTINEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-678-ALL -------------------Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Martinez-Garcia (Martinez) 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 Martinez to 41 months in prison, based on a prior conviction for an alien smuggling offense. Martinez contends that his sentence is illegal under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory application of the federal sentencing
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 04-41276 -2guidelines. Martinez thus alleges a "Fanfan" error. See United In the
States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005).
district court, Martinez 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 Martinez'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. Martinez also contends that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Martinez's constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Martinez 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 See Walters, 418 F.3d at 464; Pineiro, 410 F.3d at
v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Martinez properly concedes that his argument
is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit
No. 04-41276 -3precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
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?