Juan Carlos Amaya-Martinez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). Amaya-Martinez argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his prior Texas robbery conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (Vernon 1999). He also argues that the enhancement provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional.

Robbery is expressly listed as a crime of violence in the commentary to § 2L1.2. See § 2L1.2, comment.(n. l(b)(iii)). We recently held in United, States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 378-82 (5th Cir. 2006), that the Texas offense of robbery under § 29.02 qualifies as the enumerated offense of robbery for purposes of § 2L1.2. Amaya-Martinez’s arguments are almost identical to the arguments made in Santiesteban-Hernandez and therefore provide no basis for relief.

Amaya-Martinez’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almen-darez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although he 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). Amaya-Martinez 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.