USA v. Vanegas-Soto, No. 05-51511 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 17, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51511 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. MANUEL VANEGAS-SOTO Defendant - Appellant -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-928-ALL -------------------Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Manuel Vanegas-Soto (Vanegas) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Vanegas contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a) s objectives. Vanegas also argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that his imprisonment term exceeds * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-51511 -2the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326 offense charged in his indictment. The record reflects that the district court considered factors set forth in § 3553(a) when it determined that a 77-month term of imprisonment was a fair and reasonable sentence in Vanegas s case. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Vanegas s sentence fell at the lowest end of his properly calculated advisory guideline range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). Vanegas has failed to rebut that presumption. See id. Vanegas s challenge to 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 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Vanegas contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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). Vanegas 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
