Court Opinion

ID: 8600239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:30:25.032762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:09.987184
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM: *
Apolonio Reyna-Mata appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after having been previously deported following a prior aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 580 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Reyna-Mata’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 Reyna-Mata contends that AlmendarezTorres 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). Reyna-Mata 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.