Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos ANDRADE-MESA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 185 F. App'x 383
Docket Number: No. 05-41464
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos ANDRADE-MESA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos ANDRADE-MESA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41464.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 20, 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, Sarah Beth Landau, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Carlos Andrade-Mesa (Andrade) appeals the 30-month sentence he received upon his guilty-plea conviction of attempted illegal reentry by an alien. Andrade contends that the district court erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an "aggravated felony" for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Relief on this issue is unavailing in light of circuit prece dent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Andrade argues that this circuit's precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded HinojosaLopez, Jerome is not "an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent." See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).
Andrade also makes a constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), but it is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Andrade 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-Toms 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). Andrade 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.