Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose DE JESUS BAENA-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 05-40976
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose DE JESUS BAENA-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose DE JESUS BAENA-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40976.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose De Jesus Baena-Aguilar (Baena) appeals his illegal reentry conviction, challenging the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1), (2). Baena'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 Baena 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 AlmendarezTorres 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). Baena 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.