Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo VELASQUEZ-DIAZ, also known as Daniel Alexis Velasquez-Diaz, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-25
Citations: 203 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 06-40212
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo VELASQUEZ-DIAZ, also known as Daniel Alexis Velasquez-Diaz, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo VELASQUEZ-DIAZ, also known as Daniel Alexis Velasquez-Diaz, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40212.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 25, 2006.
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, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’S Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodrigo Velasquez-Diaz (Velasquez) appeals his guilty plea conviction and 30-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported previously.
Velasquez challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Velasquez's constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Al- mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Velasquez 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). Velasquez 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.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.