
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel SANCHEZ-AGUILERA, also known as Jimmy Robles, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40062.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 28, 2006.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Miguel Sanchez-Aguilera (Sanchez) appeals his conviction and 88-month sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Sanchez contends that his plea agreement, which contained a waiver-of-appeal provision, does not bar this appeal because he is challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction and his sentence is in excess of the statutory maximum. The Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver. We assume, arguendo only, that the waiver does not bar the instant appeal.

Sanchez’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 Sanchez 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). 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. Because Sanchez has shown no error in the judgment of the district court, that judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     