United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50224
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REYNALDO GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-1601
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reynaldo Gonzalez-Gonzalez appeals his 70-month sentence
imposed following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry following
deportation. He contends that his sentence is unreasonable
because the district court failed to properly weigh the
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a
term of imprisonment greater than necessary to meet the
objectives of § 3553(a)(2).
Gonzalez’s sentence fell at the lowest end of his properly
calculated advisory guideline range and is presumptively
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50224
-2-
reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th
Cir. 2006). Giving “great deference” to such a sentence, and
recognizing that the sentencing court considered all the factors
for a fair sentence under § 3553(a), we conclude that Gonzalez
has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was
reasonable. See id.
Gonzalez challenges 18 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior
felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors
rather than elements of the offense in light of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge
is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
224, 235 (1998). Although Gonzalez 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). Gonzalez 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.