Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel MARTINEZ-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-24
Citations: 168 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 05-40483
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel MARTINEZ-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel MARTINEZ-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40483.
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, 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:
Miguel Martinez-Herrera (Martinez) appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported following conviction for an aggravated felony. Martinez asserts that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provi sions of § 1326(b) are facially unconstitutional.
The constitutional issue raised is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Martinez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it 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 AlmendarezTorres 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). Martinez 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.