Opinion
No. 06-40393 Summary Calendar.
May 17, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office Southern, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender's Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 5:05-CR-2362-ALL.
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Carmen Maritza Diaz-Beard (Diaz) appeals the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed upon her guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation. She contends that her sentence is unreasonable because of the deference given by this court to sentences within a properly-calculated guidelines range. Specifically, she challenges the presumption of reasonableness applied to guidelines sentences, see United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006), and our precedent forbidding a sentencing court from imposing a non-guidelines sentence based solely upon a policy disagreement with a sentence enhancement recommended by the Guidelines. See United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir. 2006). Conceding that her arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent, Diaz seeks only to preserve them for appeal.
Diaz further asserts that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) cause the statute to be unconstitutional. This argument is also foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Diaz contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Diaz properly concedes that the argument is foreclosed and raises it here to preserve it for further review.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.