Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas MALDONADO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-20
Citations: 231 F. App'x 398
Docket Number: No. 06-40105
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas MALDONADO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas MALDONADO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40105
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 20, 2007.
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 Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Maldonado-Garcia (Maldonado) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Maldonado 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 Maldonado con cedes, his argument has been rejected by this court. See United States v. ValdezMaltos, 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, 546 U.S. 1199,126 S.Ct. 1398,164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006).
Maldonado 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 Maldonado 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.2005). Maldonado 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.