Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelino PUENTE-LIMON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 224 F. App'x 454
Docket Number: No. 05-41010
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelino PUENTE-LIMON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 454–455

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelino PUENTE-LIMON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41010
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 18, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appeljan£
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 5:05-CR-159-ALL.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marcelino Puente-Limon appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 30-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.
Puente-Limon'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 he 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). Puente-Limon 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.