Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Maricela MARTINEZ-MENDOZA, also known as Cindy Lou Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-24
Citations: 169 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 05-40916
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Maricela MARTINEZ-MENDOZA, also known as Cindy Lou Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Maricela MARTINEZ-MENDOZA, also known as Cindy Lou Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40916.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 24, 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, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Rene’ C. Flores, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maria Maricela Martinez-Mendoza appeals her sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported. Martinez-Mendoza argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This 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 Martinezr-Mendoza 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). Martinez-Mendoza properly concedes that her argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but she 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.