Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leocadio VELASQUEZ, also known as Leocadio Pecellin, 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 301
Docket Number: No. 05-40943
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leocadio VELASQUEZ, also known as Leocadio Pecellin, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 301–301

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leocadio VELASQUEZ, also known as Leocadio Pecellin, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40943.
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, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leocadio Velasquez appeals his guilty-plea conviction of being found illegally in the United States after having previously been deported. Velasquez argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional both on their face and as applied. Velasquez'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 Velasquez 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 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). Velasquez 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.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.