United States v. Carlos-De La Torre

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-51635
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JACINTO CARLOS-DE LA TORRE, also known as Jacinto Carlos,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-555-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jacinto Carlos-De La Torre (Carlos) appeals the 46-month
sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry
after deportation.
Carlos first argues that his sentence was unreasonable
because the district court imposed a term of imprisonment greater
than necessary to meet 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s objectives. We
review the sentence imposed for reasonableness. United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005). As Carlos was sentenced at
the low end of the applicable guidelines range, and he identifies

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-51635
-2-
no error in the guidelines calculations, we give great deference
to the sentence imposed. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
Contrary to Carlos’s arguments, we find that the district court
did not improperly balance the sentencing factors and the
sentence imposed was not greater than necessary to satisfy the
purposes of § 3553(a)(2). Therefore, we conclude that the 46-
month sentence imposed was reasonable.
Carlos’s constitutional challenge to the provisions of
8 U.S.C. § 1326 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 now would overrule Almendarez-Torres, 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). Carlos 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.

-- 2 of 2 --