Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ARGUETA-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Saul Hernandez-Argueta, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 185 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 05-41254
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ARGUETA-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Saul Hernandez-Argueta, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ARGUETA-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Saul Hernandez-Argueta, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41254.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 20, 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 Defendan1>-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Argueta-Hernandez (Argueta) appeals following his guilty plea to a charge of illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Argueta argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of cocaine as an "aggravated felony" for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Argueta's argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Argueta 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 Hinojosa-Lopez, 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).
Argueta also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Argueta'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 Argueta 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). Argueta 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.