Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises LUNA, also known as Luna Moises, also known as Moses Luna, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-25
Citations: 203 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 05-20650
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises LUNA, also known as Luna Moises, also known as Moses Luna, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises LUNA, also known as Luna Moises, also known as Moses Luna, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-20650
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Moisés Luna appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after previous deportation. Luna contends that the district court erred in treating his Texas burglary of a habitation conviction as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). As Luna concedes, his argument has been rejected by this court. See United States v. Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 2006), 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).
Luna 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 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Luna 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). Luna 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.