Roberto Rodriguez-Lopez (Rodriguez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being unlawfully found in the United States after deportation, having previously been convicted of an aggravated felony. He 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, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Rodriguez contends that § 1326(b) must be severed from the remainder of the statute and his conviction reduced to one under § 1326(a). The Government argues that the waiver provisions in Rodriguez’s plea agreement preclude his attack on the constitutionality of § 1326(b) and that he lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 1326(b). We assume, arguendo only, that the waiver does not bar the instant appeal.

However, Rodriguez cannot succeed in this appeal because his 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 Rodriguez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in hght of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the'basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lapez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Rodriguez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in fight of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.