Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucios LIMONES-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-13
Citations: 185 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 05-41433
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucios LIMONES-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucios LIMONES-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41433
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 13, 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, Michael L. Herman, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lucios Limones-Alvarado (Limones) pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to reenter the United States without permission after having been deported. Li mones contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), under which he was convicted, is unconstitutional.
Limones'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 Limones 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). Limones 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.
Limones also asserts that this court should remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We remand for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to reflect that the offense of conviction was attempted illegal reentry rather than Limones having been "found in" the United States illegally. See United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CORRECTING CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT.
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.