Court Opinion

ID: 8600352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:37:21.980584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:10.162438
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM: *
Ruben Aristides Benitez-Delgado (Benitez) appeals his conviction and 24-month sentence for illegal reentry by an alien after deportation. He argues that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jer *685sey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Benitez’s constitutional challenge to § 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 Benitez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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). Benitez 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.