Hipólito M. Paniagua-Maravilla (Paniagua) appeals his guilty-plea conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of the statute cause it to be unconstitutional on its face and as applied in his ease. Paniagua’s constitutional chal *323 lenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Paniagua 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). Paniagua 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.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.