Defendant-Appellant Alger Eduardo Fragosa-Alaniz (Fragosa-Alaniz) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. Fragosa-Alaniz’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 Fragosa-Alaniz 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 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). Fragosa-Alaniz 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 district court, however, erred in enhancing Fragosa-Alaniz’s sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) by determining that his state conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance was an “aggravated felony.” See United States v. Estrada-Mendoza, 475 F.3d 258, 261 (5th Cir. 2007). We therefore vacate Fragosa-Alaniz’s sentence and remand his case for resentencing. See id.

We grant Fragosa-Alaniz’s unopposed motion to (1) withdraw his argument that the district court erred in assessing four criminal history points for two prior convictions, (2) affirm his conviction, and (3) vacate and remand his sentence.

MOTION GRANTED; AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.