Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis DIAZ-SANTANA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-12
Citations: 177 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 05-40794
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis DIAZ-SANTANA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis DIAZ-SANTANA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40794.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 12, 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, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Luiz Diaz-Santana appeals from a guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Diaz-Santana challenges the constitutionality § 1326(b). His 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 Diaz-Santana 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). Diaz-Santana 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.