United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41458
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAIME ABEL RANGEL-TOVAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-363-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jaime Abel Rangel-Tovar appeals his guilty plea conviction
and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district
court erred in treating his Texas burglary of a habitation
conviction as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Rangel-Tovar’s argument 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);
United States v. Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41458
-2-
2006), petition for cert. filed (July 24, 2006) (06-5473).
Further, Rangel-Tovar’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. 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).
Rangel-Tovar also challenges the constitutionality of
§ 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony
convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the
offense that must be found by a jury in light of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Rangel-Tovar’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).
Although Rangel-Tovar 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). Rangel-Tovar 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.