Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel FLORES-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 185 F. App'x 379
Docket Number: No. 05-41328
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel FLORES-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 379–380

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel FLORES-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41328.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 20, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leonel Flores-Huerta (Flores) appeals following his guilty plea to a charge of illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Flores argues, for the first time on appeal, 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). Flores's argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Flores 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).
Flores also challenges for the first time on appeal 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). Flores'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 Flores 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). Flores 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.