Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ESPINOSA-IBARRA, also known as Francisco Velos-Salas, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-14
Citations: 157 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 05-40408
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ESPINOSA-IBARRA, also known as Francisco Velos-Salas, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ESPINOSA-IBARRA, also known as Francisco Velos-Salas, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40408.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 14, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Espinosa-Ibarra appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. Espinosa's constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Espinosa 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, — L.Ed.2d — (2005). Espinosa 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.