
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Mauricio ORDUNO-GOMEZ, also known as Carlos Mauricio Orduno Gomez, also known as Carlos Oruno, also known as Christian Cardoza, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-11087
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 14, 2007.
    Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, John Brent Worley, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carlos Mauricio Orduno-Gomez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and subsequent sentence for illegal reentry.

Orduno’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Orduno contends Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it in the 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 contentions because Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See, e.g., 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). Orduno properly concedes his claim is foreclosed in the light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent; he raises it only to preserve it for further review.

The district court erred in enhancing Orduno’s sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) by determining his state conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance was an “aggravated felony”. See United States v. Estrada-Mendoza, 475 F.3d 258, 259 (2007). Consequently, Orduno’s sentence is vacated and this matter remanded for resentencing. Id.

Accordingly, we need not reach his claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that restricting the U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 early-disposition program to certain geographical locations violated his due-process and equal-protection rights. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 n. 62 (5th Cir.2005).

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     