Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo ZUNIGA-ENRIQUEZ, also known as Florencio Zuniga-Enriquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 186 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 05-41784
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo ZUNIGA-ENRIQUEZ, also known as Florencio Zuniga-Enriquez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo ZUNIGA-ENRIQUEZ, also known as Florencio Zuniga-Enriquez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41784.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Zuniga-Enriquez (Zuniga) appeals his illegal reentry conviction and sentence, challenging the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2). Zuniga's constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Zuniga contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule AlmendarezTorres 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, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Zuniga properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of AlmendarezTorres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.