Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo Manuel LUMBRERAS-LINARES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-11
Citations: 176 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 05-40747
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo Manuel LUMBRERAS-LINARES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo Manuel LUMBRERAS-LINARES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40747.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 11, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodolfo Manuel Lumbreras-Linares appeals his guilty-plea conviction of being a previously deported alien found illegally in the United States. Lumbreras-Linares contends that the district court erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an "aggravated felony" for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Relief on this issue is precluded. See United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Lumbreras-Linares argues that this circuit's precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded HinojosaLopez, Jerome is not "an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent." See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).
Lumbreras-Linares's constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Lumbreras-Linares contends that AlmendarezTorres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (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, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Lumbreras-Linares 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. The judgment of the district court is 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.