
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alberto TOLEDO-VIDES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-41034.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 1, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Mark Michael Dowd, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Alberto Toledo-Vides appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Toledo-Vides argues that his sentence should be vacated and remanded because the district court sentenced him under the mandatory guidelines scheme held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Because the district court sentenced Toledo-Vides under a mandatory guidelines regime, it committed error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005); see also United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir.2005). The Government concedes that Toledo-Vides’s objection below preserved his claim. We cannot affirm the erroneous sentence unless the Government shows that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 285-86 (5th Cir.2005). We conclude that the Government has not met its burden. See United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 171 (5th Cir.2005). We therefore VACATE Toledo-Vides’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing.

Toledo-Vides also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Toledo-Vides contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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). Toledo-Vides properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for farther review. Accordingly, ToledoVides’s conviction is AFFIRMED.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED. 
      
       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.
     