Opinion
No. 06-41551 Conference Calendar.
May 2, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, 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. 7:06-CR-580-ALL.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Joel Ernesto Valdes preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because this court's post- Booker rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker. Valdes concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court's methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. Valdes also raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).