Raul Trevino Flores appeals his sentence for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Although the Government seeks to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appellate waiver provision in Trevino Flores’s plea agreement, we need not decide whether the waiver precludes consideration of the instant appeal as Trevino Flores’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 Trevino Flores 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). Trevino Flores properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here *441 to preserve it for further review. His conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.