
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador ALONSO-DE LIRA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-51387
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 28, 2006.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Salvador Alonso-De Lira (Aonso) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Aonso contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s objectives. Aonso also argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that his imprisonment term exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326 offense charged in his indictment.

The record reflects that the district court considered factors set forth in § 3553(a) when it determined that a 70-month term of imprisonment was a fair and reasonable sentence in Aonso’s case. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Aonso’s sentence fell at the lowest end of his properly calculated advisory guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir.2006). Aonso has failed to rebut that presumption. See id.

Aonso’s challenge to 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 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Athough Aonso contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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). Aonso 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.

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.
     