Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chester Enrique ROMERO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 169 F. App'x 194
Docket Number: No. 05-40759
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chester Enrique ROMERO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chester Enrique ROMERO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40759.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 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, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chester Enrique Romero-Ortiz appeals his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien found in the United States after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. The district court sentenced Romero-Ortiz to 33 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. To the extent that Romero-Ortiz's challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is construed as a challenge to his conviction, it is not precluded by the terms of the plea agreement.
Romero-Ortiz'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 Romero-Ortiz 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-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). Romero-Ortiz 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.
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.