United States v. Ayala-Castanon

101 F. App'x 560

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

Alejandro Ayala-Castanon appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted illegal entry after deportation. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions found at 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional sentencing provisions. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Ayala-Castanon concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

Ayala-Castanon also argues that there is an error in the judgment. However, because the district court has corrected this error, this issue is moot.

AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.