Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo GONZALEZ-RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-25
Citations: 195 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 05-41486
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo GONZALEZ-RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 247–247

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo GONZALEZ-RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41486
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 25, 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, Michael L. Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adolfo Gonzalez-Rivas (Gonzalez) appeals his guilty plea conviction and 60-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported previously.
Gonzalez challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Gonzalez's constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Gonzalez contends that Almendarez-Torres 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). Gonzalez 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.
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.