                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                               F I L E D
                                                              December 12, 2006
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk


                              No. 05-40585
                          Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERASMO ESPINOZA-GARCIA,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 5:04-CR-1774-ALL
                       --------------------

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Erasmo Espinoza-Garcia (Espinoza) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by

being found in the United States without permission after

deportation.   He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), that the 48-month term of imprisonment imposed

in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for

the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment.    He challenges



     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40585
                                -2-

the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather

than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

     Espinoza’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although he 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).   Espinoza

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.

     The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
