USA v. Reyes-Bautista

Filing 920060221

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 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40022 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MAGDALENO REYES-BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1494-ALL -------------------Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Magdaleno Reyes-Bautista appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States, without permission, following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b).

Reyes-Bautista argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Reyes-Bautista's constitutional

challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Reyes-Bautista contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-40022 -2the 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, Reyes-

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).

Bautista 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. Reyes-Bautista next argues that the district court erred by characterizing, for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an "aggravated felony." foreclosed. Reyes-Bautista's argument is

See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, The Supreme Court's decision in Jerome v.

694 (5th Cir. 1997).

United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943), does not affect this precedent. Finally, Reyes-Bautista argues that the district court committed reversible error when it sentenced him pursuant to the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines scheme held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). By sentencing Reyes-Bautista under a mandatory guidelines regime, the district court committed what this court refers to as Fanfan error. 2005). See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. The Government concedes that Reyes-Bautista preserved his The Government has not

Fanfan claim for appellate review.

No. 05-40022 -3sustained its burden of demonstrating that the district court's Fanfan error was harmless. See id. at 463-64. We therefore we

VACATE Reyes-Bautista's sentence and REMAND the case for resentencing. CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.