Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Armas HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-25
Citations: 195 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 05-41455
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Armas HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Armas HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41455
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 25, 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, Molly E. Odom, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Armas Hernandez (Armas) appeals his jury-trial conviction and sentence for being illegally present in the United States following removal subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. Ar-mas'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 Armas contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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). Armas 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.