United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 17, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50053
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FLOR DEL RIO, also known as Flor Del Rio-De Mendez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-1869-ALL
--------------------
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Flor Del Rio appeals her sentence following her guilty-plea
conviction of one charge of illegal reentry into the United
States. Del Rio argues that the district court erred in
sentencing her under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme.
She acknowledges that this claim is reviewed for plain error
only, but she contends that she can meet this standard.
The district court committed error that is plain by
sentencing Del Rio under a mandatory sentencing guidelines
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50053
-2-
regime. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21
(5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005)
(No. 04-9517); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728,
732 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005)
(No. 05-5556). Nevertheless, Del Rio has not carried her burden
of showing that the district court’s error affected her
substantial rights. See Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733-34;
Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. She thus has not shown that she should
receive relief on this claim.
Del Rio’s argument that the sentencing provisions in 8
U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional is, as she concedes,
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,
247 (1998). See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-490
(2000); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.
2000).
Del Rio has shown no reversible error in the district
court’s judgment. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.