United States v. Banegas-Sanchez

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 18, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-41732 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE ARMANDO BANEGAS-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-834-1 -------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Armando Banegas-Sanchez (Banegas) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. He argues that the district court plainly erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for simple possession of cocaine as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), when that same offense was punishable only as a misdemeanor under federal law. This issue, however, is foreclosed by United States v. Caicedo- * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 03-41732 -2- Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1021 (2003), and United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Banegas has not demonstrated plain error. Banegas also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. As Banegas concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). AFFIRMED.