United States v. Vargas-Vasquez
Docket: No. 04-41619
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; March 7, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Juan Carlos Vargas-Vasquez pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal from the United States, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a, b)(2), and received a 77-month prison sentence. He appeals, claiming the district court violated his due process rights and 18 U.S.C. § 4244 by not ordering a competency hearing. Vargas-Vasquez argues his agitation and irrational behavior at sentencing warranted an evaluation. However, his defense counsel acknowledged no communication issues prior to sentencing, and the presentence investigation report indicated no mental health problems. Vargas-Vasquez failed to provide medical opinions suggesting incompetence, undermining his claim for a competency hearing. On appeal, Vargas-Vasquez also argues that his sentence was imposed under a mandatory guidelines regime, contrary to United States v. Booker, and contends that the felony provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. However, these issues lack merit, and Vargas-Vasquez concedes he cannot demonstrate that the district court would have imposed a different sentence under an advisory guidelines regime, failing to establish plain error. His argument that the sentencing error is structural or presumptively prejudicial has been previously rejected by the court. Additionally, Vargas-Vasquez’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which he acknowledges but raises for further review. Ultimately, the court affirms the conviction and sentence, determining the opinion will not be published as precedent under 5th Cir. R. 47.5.