Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda REYNA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 190 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 05-41119
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda REYNA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 342–342

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda REYNA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41119
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 20, 2006.
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, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Yolanda Reyna-Rios appeals from her guilty plea conviction for attempted illegal entry into the United States after deportation following an aggravated-felony conviction. She argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
The Government argues that the waiver provision in Reyna-Rios's plea agreement precludes her attack on the constitutionality of § 1326(b). We assume, arguendo only, that the waiver does not bar the instant appeal.
Reyna-Rios'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 Reyna-Rios 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. Garzar-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Reyna-Rios properly concedes that her argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but she 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.