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. 05-41119
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

YOLANDA REYNA-RIOS,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 1:05-CR-53-ALL
                       --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Yolanda Reyna-Rios appeals from her guilty plea conviction

for attempted illegal entry into the United States after

deportation following an aggravated-felony conviction.      She

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, 

(2000).

     The Government argues that the waiver provision in Reyna-

Rios’s plea agreement precludes her attack on the


     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41119
                                -2-

constitutionality of § 1326(b).   We assume, arguendo only, that

the waiver does not bar the instant appeal.

     Reyna-Rios’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

, 235 (1998).

Although Reyna-Rios 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, 

, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(2005).

Reyna-Rios properly concedes that her argument is foreclosed in

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but she raises

it here to preserve it for further review.

     AFFIRMED.