Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus REYES-OLVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 203 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 05-41116
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus REYES-OLVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus REYES-OLVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41116
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Reyes-Olvera (Reyes) appeals the 24-month sentence he received upon his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry by an alien. Reyes contends that the district court erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an "aggravated felony' for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Relief on this issue is not available in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Reyes argues that this circuit's precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome is not "an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent." See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).
Reyes also makes a constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), but it is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Reyes contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almen-darez-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). 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.
The judgment of the district court is 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.