United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40623
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LORENZO PRADO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:03-CR-870-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lorenzo Prado appeals his sentence following his guilty plea
conviction for possession with intent to distribute 255 kilograms
of marijuana, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Prado contends that § 841 is unconstitutional in light of
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Prado concedes,
his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United
States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). He
raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40623
-2-
Prado also contends that the district court erred by finding
that his prior Texas state conviction for burglary of a
habitation constitutes a “crime of violence” for purposes of the
career offender enhancement provision of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The
district court correctly found that Prado’s prior conviction for
burglary of a habitation was a conviction for a crime of violence
under § 4B1.2(a). See United States v. Hornsby, 88 F.3d 336,
339 (5th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Garcia-Mendez,
420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005) (applying Hornsby to
enhancement pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)).
Finally, although the district court’s imposition of a
sentence of 188 months of imprisonment was within the applicable
guidelines range, Prado contends that the sentence was
unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
This court recently held that a discretionary sentence imposed
within a properly calculated guideline range is presumptively
reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, ___ F.3d ___,
No. 05-20130, 2006 WL 39119 at *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2006).
Prado has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence was
reasonable.
AFFIRMED.