United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50959
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE HUMBERTO RAMIREZ-ROSAS, also known as Jose Humberto,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:05-CR-37-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Humberto Ramirez-Rosas pleaded guilty to illegal
reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 70 months of
imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100
special assessment. Ramirez-Rosas argues on appeal that his
sentence was unreasonable because his sentence was greater than
necessary to meet the sentencing goals under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
He does not challenge the district court’s calculation of his
guidelines sentencing range.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50959
-2-
Because Ramirez-Rosas’s sentence was within a properly
calculated guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, we infer that the
district court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set
forth in the Guidelines. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
“[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d
551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Ramirez-Rosas has failed to
demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines sentence was
unreasonable. See id.; Mares, 402 F.3d at 519.
Ramirez-Rosas also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated
felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are
unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).
Although Ramirez-Rosas contends that Almendarez-Torres was
incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court
would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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).
Ramirez-Rosas 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.