
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Ignacio MACIEL-PADILLA, also known as Carlos Maciel, also known as Carlos Ignacio Maciel-Padillo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-41264
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 4, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carlos Ignacio Maciel-Padilla (Maciel) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Maciel argues that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based upon the determination that his 2004 conviction under Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a) for attempted indecency with a child is a crime of violence.

Sexual abuse of a minor is an enumerated offense which qualifies as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604-05 (5th Cir.2000), held that a violation of § 21.11(a) is sexual abuse of a minor as that term is used in its “ordinary, contemporary, [and] common meaning.” As such, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).

Maciel also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Maciel’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 Maciel 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 AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.2005); see also Rangel-Reyes v. United States, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2873, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir.2007). Maciel 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.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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.
     