USA v. Pena-Lopez
Filing
920070619
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 19, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40307 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIO PENA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-1805-ALL -------------------Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mario Pena-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pena-Lopez first argues that the district court erred in assessing a 16-level "crime of violence" enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on his prior felony conviction for sexual assault of a child under TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.011(a)(2). According
to Pena-Lopez, such an offense does not constitute a "crime of violence" within the meaning of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). As Pena-Lopez
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-40307 -2concedes, we review this argument for plain error. See United
States v. Gracia-Cantu, 302 F.3d 308, 310 (5th Cir. 2002). The district court committed no error, plain or otherwise. A violation of § 22.011(a)(2) "meet[s] a common-sense as well as a generic, contemporary definition of statutory rape." United
States v. Alvarado-Hernandez, 465 F.3d 188, 189-90 (5th Cir. 2006). It is thus the equivalent of an enumerated offense that
triggers the § 2L1.2 enhancement. Pena-Lopez also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. His constitutional
challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he 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 v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, Pena-Lopez properly concedes that his
276 (5th Cir. 2005).
argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. 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?