
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gonzalo BRIONES-ZAPATA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40214
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 13, 2008.
    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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gonzalo Briones-Zapata appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported. Briones-Zapata contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) because his prior Texas conviction for aggravated assault is not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. He contends that the Texas crime of aggravated assault has a broader definition than most other definitions of aggravated assault because it may be committed by threatening the victim with a weapon.

This court has previously held that aggravated assault under Texas Penal Code § 22.02 (Vernon 2000), which is identical to the 2006 version of the statute at issue in the instant ease, is substantially similar to the generic, common sense definition of “aggravated assault” and therefore qualifies as the enumerated offense of “aggravated assault” under the Guidelines. See United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199-201 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 418, 169 L.Ed.2d 293 (2007); see also United States v. Rojas-Gutierrez, 510 F.3d 545 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Galves, 262 Fed.Appx. 587 (5th Cir.2007) (unpublished); United States v. Quintanilla-Garay, 254 Fed.Appx. 425 (5th Cir.2007) (unpublished); United States v. Delgado-Salazar, 252 Fed.Appx. 596 (5th Cir.2007) (unpublished).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Briones-Zapata challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, die 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.
     