Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo Alberto ARVIZU-GARCIA, 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 723
Docket Number: No. 04-40868
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo Alberto ARVIZU-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 723–723

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo Alberto ARVIZU-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40868.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Hajjar, 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:
Hugo Alberto Arvizu-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his illegal reentry conviction. He argues for the first time on appeal that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). He concedes that the issue is foreclosed but seeks its preservation for possible Supreme Court review.
Arvizu's arguments are not precluded by the terms of his appeal waiver; nevertheless, his arguments are 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. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.