                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 August 25, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41454
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE SANTANA MARTINEZ-SANDOVAL, also known as Jose
Martinez-Santana,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 7:05-CR-318-ALL
                       --------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jose Santana Martinez-Sandoval appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United

States after a previous deportation.   He argues that the “felony”

and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and

(b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000).

     Martinez-Sandoval’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
                           No. 05-41454
                                -2-

Although Martinez-Sandoval contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).

Martinez-Sandoval 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.

     AFFIRMED.
