Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime ZAGAL-MERAZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 203 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 05-41467
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime ZAGAL-MERAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 598–598

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime ZAGAL-MERAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41467
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jaime Zagal-Meraz (Zagal) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. Zagal contends that his Minnesota conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance is a misdemeanor under federal law and should not have been treated as an "aggravated felony" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Zagal's § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) argument is unavailing in light of our precedent. 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). Zagal argues that our precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded HinojosaLopez, however, 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).
Zagal's constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Athough Zagal 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, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Zagal 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.
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.