United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 06-40826 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ENRIQUE DAVILA-SOLIS,
also known as Roberto Demetrio Godoy,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 1:05-CR-1035-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Enrique Davila-Solis appeals his conviction of, and sentence
for, illegal reentry after having been deported following a convic-
tion of aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
and (b). Davila-Solis contends the district court erred by apply-
ing an eight-level increase to his offense level, pursuant to
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), because the conviction that resulted in
his deportation, misdemeanor assault in violation of TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. 22.01(a)(1), is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16
and does not constitute an aggravated felony under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).
In United States v. Villegas-Hernandez, 468 F.3d 874 (5th Cir.
2006), this court determined that use of force is not an element of
§ 22.01(a)(1). The district court therefore erred in applying an
enhancement based on this factor. The government concedes that
based on Villegas-Hernandez, the court so erred, but the government
asserts the error is harmless. Because, however, the government
has failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the court
would have imposed the same sentence absent the error, see U.S. v.
Kay, 83 F.3d 98, 101 (5th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d
282, 286 (5th Cir. 2005), the sentence is vacated, and this matter
remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
Davila-Solis also challenges the constitutionality of the
treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions under
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) as sentencing factors rather than elements of
the offense that must be found by a jury. This challenge is fore-
closed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235
(1998). Although Davila-Solis suggests that a majority of the Su-
preme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), this court has repeatedly re-
jected such arguments and has declared Almendarez-Torres binding.
2
See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). See also Rangel-Reyes v.
United States, 126 S. Ct. 2873 (2006). Davila-Solis concedes his
argument is foreclosed but raises it preserve it for further
review.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED for resen-
tencing.
3