
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Camilo VARGAS-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-41107.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 14, 2005.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, 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 KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Camilo Vargas-Espinoza (“Vargas”) appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for attempted illegal reentry after removal. The district court sentenced Vargas to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. To the extent that Vargas’s challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is construed as a challenge to his conviction, it is not precluded by the terms of his appellate-waiver provision.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     