Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis LOPEZ-TOVAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 04-40391
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis LOPEZ-TOVAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis LOPEZ-TOVAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40391.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Christopher Atkinson Jenkins, Samy K. Khalil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Luis Lopez-Tovar (Lopez) pleaded guilty and was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation. He was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Lopez contends that the district court erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of marijuana as an "aggravated felony" for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. This issue, however, is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 700-06 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997).
Lopez also argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Lopez concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).
Lopez further argues that the Supreme Court's holding in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), should be applied to sentences determined under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. As Lopez concedes, this argument is foreclosed by this court's recent opinion in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-73 (5th Cir.2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), but he raises it to preserve it for possible further review.
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.