Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rito Arturo SANCHEZ-POLANCO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-14
Citations: 158 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 05-40705
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rito Arturo SANCHEZ-POLANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 548–548

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rito Arturo SANCHEZ-POLANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40705.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 14, 2005.
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, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rito Arturo Sanchez-Polanco (Sanchez) pleaded guilty to one count of reentering the United States without permission after having been deported. Sanchez's constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Sanchez 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, — L.Ed.2d-(2005). Sanchez 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.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.