
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dario RAMOS-GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-41593
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 9, 2007.
    
      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 JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Dario Ramos-Guerrero appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Ramos-Guerrero contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level increase to his offense level based on its finding that his 1999 Nebraska conviction for manslaughter was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). The Government concedes that the record is not sufficient to establish whether Ramos-Guerrero’s prior conviction for manslaughter under Nebraska law was a crime of violence for purposes of the enhancement under § 2L1.2. In light of the Government’s concession, Ramos-Guerrero requests that the matter be remanded for resentencing with respect to the application of the § 2L1.2 enhancement.

After reviewing the record, we agree with the parties that a remand is appropriate. See United States v. Garcia, 470 F.3d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we vacate Ramos-Guerrero’s sentence and we remand for development of the record and resentencing. See id. Ramos-Guerrero’s motion to expedite is granted.

Ramos-Guerrero also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 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. Ramos-Guerrero’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 he 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 Almen darez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.2005). Ramos-Guerrero 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.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED; MOTION GRANTED. 
      
       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.
     