                                                        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. 05-40387
                         Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ORLANDO GUEVARA-SOSA,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 5:04-CR-1505-ALL
                        --------------------

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

PER CURIAM:*

     Jose Orlando Guevara-Sosa appeals his conviction for illegal

reentry.   His constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998).    Although Guevara-Sosa contends that Almendarez-

Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme

Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.


     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40387
                               -2-

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).   Guevara-Sosa 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.
