Valente Acosta-Licea appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States after previous deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Acosta-Licea argues that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(n) based upon his Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. As Acosta-Licea concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 455-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1398, 164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006), and although he argues that Garcia-Mendez was incorrectly decided, Garcia-Mendez remains binding. See United States v. Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 (5th Cir. 2002).

Acosta-Licea’s constitutional challenge to § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Acosta-Licea contends that Almendarez-Torres 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 AlmendarezTorres 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). Acosta-Licea properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of AlmendarezTorres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.