                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                                               F I L E D
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  June 20, 2006

                                                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk
                              No. 05-40404
                          Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAIME CARO-GONZALEZ,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                          --------------------
             Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 1:04-CR-937-ALL
                          --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

         Jaime Caro-Gonzalez (Caro) appeals following his guilty

plea conviction 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).      Because the

Government has not invoked the waiver provisions in the plea

agreement, the waiver does not bind Caro.       See United States v.

Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006).


     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40404
                                -2-

     Caro’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

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

Although Caro 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).    Caro

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 Caro has shown no error

in the judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
