
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Ramon BONILLA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40806.
    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.
    
      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.
   PER CURIAM:

Victor Ramon Bonilla-Chavez (“Bonilla”) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after a previous 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). To the extent that Bonilla’s challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is construed as a challenge to his conviction, it is not precluded by the terms of his appellate-waiver provision.

Bonilla’s constitutional challenge, however, is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Bonilla 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). Bonilla 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     