USA v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez
Filing
920070614
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 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-41160 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE BERNARDO RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-2032
Before GARWOOD, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Bernardo Rodriguez-Rodriguez was convicted of one count of having been found in the United States following deportation and sentenced to serve 57 months in prison. Rodriguez-Rodriguez argues that his bottom of the guideline range sentence (imposed July 2006) is unreasonable because he requested a sentence below the
guidelines based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and that the district court imposed the sentence without considering 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 R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*
mitigating factor or the nature and circumstances of the offense. The record shows that Rodriguez-Rodriguez's factual assertion that the district court did not consider the mitigating circumstance presented at sentencing is factually incorrect. Rodriguez-
Rodriguez has not shown that the sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable. 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). Rodriguez-Rodriguez challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 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. Rodriguez-Rodriguez's See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,
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 Alemdarez-Torres is light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 460 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Alemdarez-Torres remains binding. Cir. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Rodriguez-Rodriguez properly concedes that his
2005).
argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for future review. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2
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?