PER CURIAM: Jose De Jesus Martin-Gomez appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(
a) and (
b) for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported following conviction for an aggravated felony. Martin-Gomez asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(
b) are unconstitutional. Martin-Gomez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Martin-Gomez contends that AlmendarezTorres 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, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Martin-Gomez 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. Given the above disposition, we do not decide whether Martin-Gomez’s appeal is barred by the waiver provision of his plea agreement. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.