Alfredo Perez-Montero appeals following his guilty-plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Perez-Montero 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)(l)(C). Perezr-Monte-ro’s argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hi-nojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Perez-Montero argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome is not “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).

Perez-Montero also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Perez-Montero’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). Athough Perez-Montero 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, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Perez-Montero 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.