USA v. Parral, No. 06-30424 (5th Cir. 2007)
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 February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30424 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE JULIAN PARRAL, also known as Jose Julian Parral-Ramos, also known as Jose Julin Parral-Ramos, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-CR-163 -------------------Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Julian Parral appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the 96-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the 8 U.S.C. ยง 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. Parral s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), in which the Supreme Court held that treatment of prior convictions as sentencing * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-30424 -2factors, rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury, was constitutional. Although Parral contends that a majority of the Supreme Court would now consider Almendarez-Torres to be incorrectly decided in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 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). Parral 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.
