United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41456
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDUARDO GARCIA-CAVAZOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-199-ALL
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eduardo Garcia-Cavazos challenges his guilty-plea conviction
and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia-Cavazos’s argument that his
prior burglary conviction in Texas does not qualify as a crime of
violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) has been rejected by
this court. See United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454,
456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41456
-2-
Garcia-Cavazos’s argument that this court did not properly apply
the categorical analysis of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575
(1990), is tantamount to arguing that Garcia-Mendez was wrongly
decided. Garcia-Mendez resolved the issue raised in this case;
one panel of this court may not ignore the precedent set by a
prior panel. United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.
1999).
Garcia-Cavazos 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 Garcia-Cavazos 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). Garcia-Cavazos properly concedes that his
argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit
precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for review by the
Supreme Court.
AFFIRMED.