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. 05-41693
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ-PINON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-137-ALL
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rolando Rodriguez-Pinon (Rodriguez) challenges his guilty-
plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rodriguez’s
contention 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) lacks merit in light of United States v.
Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006). His contention that this court
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41693
-2-
did not apply the proper categorical analysis of Taylor v. United
States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), is no more than an argument that
Garcia-Mendez was wrongly decided. Garcia-Mendez resolved the
issue raised in this case, and 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). Rodriguez’s conviction
for burglary of a habitation was a crime of violence for purposes
of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) and provided a basis for the district
court’s 16-level enhancement of his offense level.
Rodriguez also contends 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 Rodriguez 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). Rodriguez properly concedes that his argument is
foreclosed, but he raises it here to preserve it for further
review.
AFFIRMED.