Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel ESCOBAR-RICO, also known as Daniel Escobar, also known as Jose Daniel Escobar, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-13
Citations: 218 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 06-20420
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel ESCOBAR-RICO, also known as Daniel Escobar, also known as Jose Daniel Escobar, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel ESCOBAR-RICO, also known as Daniel Escobar, also known as Jose Daniel Escobar, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-20420
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lyons Rhodes Vela, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Escobar-Rico appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for attempting to enter the United States without consent after having been deported and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Escobar-Rico argues that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based upon his Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. His argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 265, 166 L.Ed.2d 205 (2006); United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1398, 164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006).
Escobar-Rico also challenges, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. His 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 he contends that AlmendarezTorres 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). Escobar-Rico 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.