Filed: Jun. 21, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41674 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADRIAN MANCILLA-RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-440-ALL - Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Adrian Mancilla-Rangel (Mancilla) appe
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41674 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADRIAN MANCILLA-RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-440-ALL - Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Adrian Mancilla-Rangel (Mancilla) appea..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41674
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADRIAN MANCILLA-RANGEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:05-CR-440-ALL
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adrian Mancilla-Rangel (Mancilla) appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in
the United States after deportation and after having been
convicted of an aggravated felony. Mancilla argues that the
“felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.
Mancilla’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41674
-2-
Although Mancilla 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, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Mancilla 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.
AFFIRMED.