Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Filiberto OCHOA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-25
Citations: 195 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 06-40126
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Filiberto OCHOA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Filiberto OCHOA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40126.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 25, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, U.S. Attorney’s Of fice, Southern District of Texas Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Filiberto Ochoa-Perez appeals following his guilty-plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ochoa-Perez argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of cocaine as an "aggravated felony" for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Ochoa-Perez's argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Ochoa-Perez 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).
Ochoa-Perez also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Ochoa-Perez'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 Ochoa-Perez contends that Almendarez-Torres 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). Ochoa-Perez 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.