Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hipolito M. PANIAGUA-MARAVILLA, also known as Martin Chavez-Alejo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-14
Citations: 218 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 05-41496
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hipolito M. PANIAGUA-MARAVILLA, also known as Martin Chavez-Alejo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hipolito M. PANIAGUA-MARAVILLA, also known as Martin Chavez-Alejo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41496
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 14, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hipólito M. Paniagua-Maravilla (Paniagua) appeals his guilty-plea conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He asserts that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of the statute cause it to be unconstitutional on its face and as applied in his ease. Paniagua's constitutional chal lenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Paniagua 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). Paniagua 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.