
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian ROMERO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-41288
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 25, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Adrian Romero-Hernandez appeals his conviction and sentence following his plea of guilty to one count of unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). Romero-Hernandez first contends that his 46-month sentence, which was within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range, was unreasonable. According to Romero-Hernandez, this court’s application of a presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentences effectively renders the Guidelines mandatory in contravention of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Romero-Hernandez’s argument is foreclosed by circuit and Supreme Court precedent. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir.2006); see also Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2463-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Romero-Hernandez also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     