                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  April 12, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40768
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CELESTINO CRUZ-CERVANTES,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 5:05-CR-28-ALL
                       --------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Celestino Cruz-Cervantes appeals his guilty plea conviction

and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States.       He

argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).   His constitutional

challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).   Although Cruz-Cervantes contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of


     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40768
                                -2-

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).   Cruz-Cervantes 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.   Because Cruz-Cervantes has shown no error in the

judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
