USA v. Ramos

Filing 920060308

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT March 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 04-41545 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODOLFO RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (5:04-CR-1028-ALL)

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rodolfo Ramos appeals his sentence upon his guilty­plea

conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ramos first asserts the district court's belief at the time of sentencing that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were

mandatory, rather than advisory, requires reversal under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because Ramos preserved the Fanfan error in the district court, we review for harmless error. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1
*

See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). The Government has not met its

burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the district judge would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory guidelines regime. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463-65 (5th Therefore, Ramos' sentence is vacated; the case

Cir. 2005).

remanded to district court for resentencing. Ramos also maintains the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This issue

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Ramos contends Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such contentions 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). Ramos concedes Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent foreclose this claim; he raises it to preserve it for further review. CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING

2