United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40834
c/w No. 05-41392
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-VASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CR-285-1
USDC No. 1:05-CR-271-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alejandro Martinez-Vasquez appeals his convictions and
sentences for unlawfully attempting to enter the United States
after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction in
2002 and unlawful presence in the United States after deportation
following an aggravated felony conviction in 2005, both in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Martinez-Vasquez
challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of
prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40834
c/w No. 05-41392
-2-
factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by
a jury in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
The Government argues that the waiver provision in Martinez-
Vasquez’s plea agreement in relation to his unlawful presence
conviction precludes his attack on the constitutionality of
§ 1326(b) in the appeal of his conviction and sentence in that
matter and that, as a result of the waiver, Martinez-Vasquez
lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in
his appeal of his unlawful presence conviction. We assume,
arguendo only, that the waiver does not bar Martinez-Vasquez’s
appeal in relation to his unlawful presence conviction.
Martinez-Vasquez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).
Although Martinez-Vasquez 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).
Martinez-Vasquez 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. For
these reasons, Martinez-Vasquez’s convictions and sentences are
AFFIRMED.