United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-51019
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENJAMIN VALLE-PERCHES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CR-582-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Benjamin Valle-Perches (Valle-Perches) appeals his 87-month
sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following
removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his
sentence was 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 satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-51019
-2-
The district court sentenced Valle-Perches within a properly
calculated advisory guideline range. Such a sentence is given
“great deference,” and we infer that the sentencing court
considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a).
See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 43 (2005). Therefore, we conclude that
Valle-Perches has failed to show that his sentence was
unreasonable.
Valle-Perches argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 87-month term of imprisonment
imposed in his case violates due process because it exceeds the
statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense
charged in the 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.
Valle-Perches’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 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). Valle-
Perches properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in
No. 06-51019
-3-
light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises
it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.