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. 05-40955
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOEL CARRILLO-MONJEZ,
also known as Jorge Campos,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-17-1
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joel Carrillo-Monjez (Carrillo) appeals the sentence he
received for illegally reentering the United States after
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Carrillo argues
that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by
characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of
cocaine as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Carrillo’s argument is unavailing in light of
circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40955
-2-
691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Carrillo argues that this circuit’s
precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S.
101 (1943). Jerome, however, preceded Hinojosa-Lopez; this court
is bound by the precedent of previous panels absent “an
intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly
overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short,
181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).
Carrillo also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)
in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Carrillo’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although
Carrillo argues 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). Carrillo
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.