Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benancio ALANIS-ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 135 F. App'x 759
Docket Number: No. 04-41510
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benancio ALANIS-ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 135
Pages: 759–759

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benancio ALANIS-ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41510.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 22, 2005.
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, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Benancio Alanis-Zuniga (Alanis-Zuniga) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Government does not seek enforcement of Alanis-Zuniga's waiver of appeal; therefore, this court will not enforce it. See United States v. Rhodes, 253 F.3d 800, 804 (5th Cir.2001).
For the first time on appeal, Alanis-Zuniga contends that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and Shepard v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). However, as Alanis-Zuniga concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.