United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 1, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51513
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUILLERMO VILLEGAS-CARRANZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-630-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Guillermo Villegas-Carranza (Villegas) appeals following his
guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. Villegas argues that the district court erroneously
construed his prior conviction in Texas for robbery as a crime of
violence and incorrectly applied a sentence enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. We have recently resolved this issue against
Villegas, however. See United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez,
469 F.3d 376, 378-81 (5th Cir. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51513
-2-
Villegas next argues that the sentence was unreasonable
because it was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing
goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court imposed the
sentence after hearing extensive argument from counsel. It is
apparent from the court’s comments that the court did consider all
of the factors that Villegas presented in his argument, but it
exercised its discretion to impose a sentence at the bottom of the
guideline range rather than depart downward. The sentence imposed
was reasonable. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
Villegas does not contend that the addition of two criminal
history points because he was on probation at the time of his
offense was an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.
He does not contend that the guidelines sentencing range was
improperly calculated.
Villegas argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000), that the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed in his
case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the
§ 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the
constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and
aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than
elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.
Villegas’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).
Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided
No. 05-51513
-3-
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). Villegas 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.