Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LLANOS-REYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-12
Citations: 176 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: No. 05-41469
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LLANOS-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LLANOS-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41469.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 12, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tony Ray Roberts, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Philip G. Gallagher, 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:
Alberto Llanos-Reyes appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for unlawful presence in the United States after deportation. Llanos-Reyes argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Llanos-Reyes'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 Llanos-Reyes 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. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Llanos-Reyes 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.