USA v. Venegas-Castillo
Filing
920060621
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
F I L E D
June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 05-41157 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EDGAR ALEJANDRO VENEGAS-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-70-ALL -------------------Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Edgar Alejandro Venegas-Castillo (Venegas) appeals the conviction and sentence resulting from his plea of guilty to illegally reentering the United States following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Venegas originally contended that the district court erred by refusing to count three prior convictions as related convictions for purposes of calculating his criminal history. However, Venegas now concedes that at least two of the
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-41157 -2convictions were not related under the Sentencing Guidelines because they were separated by an intervening arrest. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) & comment. (n.3) (Nov. 2004). See He also
concedes that any remaining error in his criminal history score would be harmless. criminal history. Venegas also contends that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Venegas's constitutional challenge is foreclosed by No relief is warranted regarding Venegas's
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Venegas contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, Venegas
276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).
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. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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?