United States v. Delgadillo-Bernal

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40111 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE JUAN DELGADILLO-BERNAL, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1632-ALL -------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Juan Delgadillo-Bernal (“Delgadillo”) appeals the sentence imposed following entry of his guilty plea to a charge of being found illegally in the United States after he had been removed subsequent to his conviction for a felony. The district court sentenced Delgadillo to 18 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Delgadillo’s sole issue on appeal is a challenge to the validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-40111 -2- (1998), and the use of his prior conviction to increase his sentence. Delgadillo asserts for the first time on appeal that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional because they are treated as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense. Delgadillo concedes that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent and admits that he raises the argument merely to preserve it for Supreme Court review. As Delgadillo concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 253 (2005); United States v. Mancia-Perez, 331 F.3d 464, 470 (5th Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres, and we must follow Almendarez- Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Mancia-Perez, 331 F.3d at 470 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). AFFIRMED.