                                                        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. 05-40927
                         Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO QUIROZ-ESCANDON,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 5:05-CR-190-ALL
                      --------------------

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

PER CURIAM:*

     Pedro Quiroz-Escandon 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 Quiroz-Escandon 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40927
                                -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).   Quiroz-Escandon 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 Quiroz-Escandon has shown no error in the

judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
