Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando PACHECO-SALINAS, also known as Rodolfo Ramos, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-14
Citations: 158 F. App'x 552
Docket Number: No. 05-40294
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando PACHECO-SALINAS, also known as Rodolfo Ramos, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 552–552

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando PACHECO-SALINAS, also known as Rodolfo Ramos, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40294.
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 District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael H. Sokolow, 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:
Fernando Pacheco-Salinas is appealing his guilty-plea conviction of being found in the United States after previous deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.
This appeal is not barred by the language of his plea agreement. Pacheco's constitutional challenge, however, is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Pacheco 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). Pacheco 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 judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.