Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CRUZ-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 209 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 05-41527
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CRUZ-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CRUZ-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41527
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 12, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Cruz-Alvarado (Cruz) 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 63-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.
Cruz'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). Cruz 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.