Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo Gerardo DE LEONLEDEZMA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-14
Citations: 218 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 06-40594
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo Gerardo DE LEON-LEDEZMA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 308–308

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo Gerardo DE LEON-LEDEZMA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40594
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 14, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Gerardo De Leon-Ledezma (De Leon) appeals his guilty-plea conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He asserts that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of the statute cause it to be unconstitutional on its face and as applied in his case. De Leon'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 De Leon 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 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). De Leon 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.