Carlos Mauricio Orduno-Gomez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and subsequent sentence for illegal reentry.

Orduno’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Orduno contends Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it in the 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 contentions because Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See, e.g., 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). Orduno properly concedes his claim is foreclosed in the light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent; he raises it only to preserve it for further review.

The district court erred in enhancing Orduno’s sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) by determining his state conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance was an “aggravated felony”. See United States v. Estrada-Mendoza, 475 F.3d 258, 259 (2007). Consequently, Orduno’s sentence is vacated and this matter remanded for resentencing. Id.

*324 Accordingly, we need not reach his claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that restricting the U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 early-disposition program to certain geographical locations violated his due-process and equal-protection rights. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 n. 62 (5th Cir. 2005).

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING