Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro ANAYA-GOMEZ, also known as Enrique Nava-Vasquez, also known as Jose Hernandez, 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 299
Docket Number: No. 05-40917
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro ANAYA-GOMEZ, also known as Enrique Nava-Vasquez, also known as Jose Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro ANAYA-GOMEZ, also known as Enrique Nava-Vasquez, also known as Jose Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40917.
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, H. Michael Sokolow, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Anaya-Gomez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Anaya-Gomez'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 Anaya-Gomez 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). Anaya-Gomez 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.
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.