United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 18, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40787
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALONSO SILVA-VELIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-2042-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alonso Silva-Veliz appeals from his sentence for illegal
reentry following deportation. He contends that the 50-month
sentence he received is unreasonable and that the presumption of
correctness given to sentences within the guideline sentencing
range effectively has reinstated a mandatory guideline sentencing
scheme, undermining the decision in United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005). He further argues that his sentence was
unreasonable because the district court gave undue weight to his
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40787
-2-
criminal history while not giving enough weight to his personal
history and family situation.
The evidence presented to the district court by Silva-Veliz
related to the nature and circumstances of his crime and his
personal history and characteristics. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1). The district court acknowledged the arguments made
in mitigation but found that Silva-Veliz’s criminal history
justified the sentence imposed. Thus, the district court’s
comments reflect concerns regarding recidivism. See
§ 3553(a)(2).
A sentence within the guideline range is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.
2006). The district court was not required to explicitly address
the sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a) in Silva-Veliz’s case
because the sentence imposed was within a properly calculated
guidelines range, and the record reflects a reasoned basis for
the sentence imposed. See United States v. Rita, S. Ct. ,
2007 WL 1772146, **12-13 (June 21, 2007); United States v. Mares,
402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Silva-Veliz has
not shown that the sentence was unreasonable or that this court
should not defer to the district court’s determinations at
sentencing. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519.
Silva-Veliz argues next that the “felony” and “aggravated
felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are
unconstitutional on their face and as applied in his case in
No. 06-40787
-3-
light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Silva-
Veliz’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although
Silva-Veliz 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. 2005). Silva-Veliz 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.