
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel BARRAZA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-41092.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 11, 2006.
    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, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Miguel Barraza-Perez appeals following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. 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). Because the Government has not invoked the waiver provisions in the plea agreement, the waiver does not bind Barraza-Perez. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir.2006).

Barraza-Perez’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 Barraza-Perez 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). Barraza-Perez 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 Barraza-Perez 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     