Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efer Eliud CAVAZOS-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-25
Citations: 203 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 06-40343
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efer Eliud CAVAZOS-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efer Eliud CAVAZOS-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40343.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, For Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, For Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Efer Eliud Cavazos-Soto (Cavazos) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being present in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. He challenges the constitutionality of § 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 in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Cavazos'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 Cavazos 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). Cavazos 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.