Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Vicente ROBLES-CORDERO, also known as Alonso Felix Campos, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-28
Citations: 195 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 05-41508
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Vicente ROBLES-CORDERO, also known as Alonso Felix Campos, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Vicente ROBLES-CORDERO, also known as Alonso Felix Campos, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41508.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 28, 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 DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Vicente Robles-Cordero appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for being unlawfully present in the United States after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and contends that his challenge is not barred by the appeal-waiver provision in his plea agreement. The Government seeks enforcement of the waiver provision.
We assume, arguendo only, that the waiver does not bar the instant appeal. Robles-Cordero'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 Robles-Cordero contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule AlmendarezTorres 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). Robles-Cordero properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of AlmendarezTorres 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.