United States v. Valdes

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
** United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-41551
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOEL ERNESTO VALDES, also known as Julio Nestor,
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.
PER CURIAM:*
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, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), and its progeny,
which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-41551
-2-
sentences for reasonableness. Valdes also raises arguments that
are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
224, 235 (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.

-- 2 of 2 --