Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo MACIAS-LEON, 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 354
Docket Number: No. 05-41082
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo MACIAS-LEON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo MACIAS-LEON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41082.
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.
Timothy William Crooks, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Macias-Leon (Macias) appeals the 27-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of § 1326(b) are facially unconstitutional.
The constitutional issue raised by Macias is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Edüd 350 (1998). Although Macias 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). Macias 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 district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.