Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Alberto PALACIO-GARCIA, 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 527
Docket Number: No. 05-40844
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Alberto PALACIO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Alberto PALACIO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40844.
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, Molly E. Odom, 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:
Miguel Alberto Palacio-Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after deportation, having previously been convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and § 1326(b).
Palacio-Garcia challenges the constitutionality of § 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 Palacio-Garcia 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). Palacio-Garcia 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.