Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Alejandro Camacho-Lopez

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-40315
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ALEJANDRO CAMACHO-LOPEZ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:06-CR-293-ALL
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Alejandro Camacho-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for illegally reentering the United States following
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Camacho contends that the district
court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because his prior Texas conviction for aggravated assault is
not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the
Texas crime of aggravated assault is more broadly defined than most other
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 27, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-40315
2
definitions of aggravated assault because it may be committed by threatening
the victim with a weapon. The Texas statute, TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02, is
substantially similar to the generic, common sense definition of “aggravated
assault” and thus qualifies as the enumerated offense of “aggravated assault”
under the Guidelines. See United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199-
201 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Beltran-Garcia v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 418
(2007),.
In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Camacho
challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and
aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the
offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully
foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d
624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan. 7, 2008) (No. 07-
6202). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --