
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto HERNANDEZ-AZUA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40992
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 31, 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.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (5:05-CR-1374).
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Gilberto Hernandez-Azua appeals from his guilty plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez-Azua argues that his sentence “is contrary to [United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) ] and unreasonable as a matter of law.” He contends that this court’s post-Booker decisions have effectively reinstated the mandatory guideline scheme condemned by Booker and further argues that, post-Booker, a district court in imposing sentence should be allowed to disagree with policy decisions of the Sentencing Commission.

Post-jBooker, appellate courts are to review sentences for reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-63, 125 S.Ct. 738; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir.2005). “If the sentencing judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range, in our reasonableness review we will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. “Given the deference due the sentencing judge’s discretion under [Booker ], it will be rare for a reviewing court to say such a sentence is ‘unreasonable.’ ” Id. Hernandez-Azua identifies no error in the guidelines calculations, and he was sentenced at the low end of the applicable guidelines range. We conclude that Hernandez-Azua’s sentence was reasonable. See id. at 519-20.

Hernandez-Azua’s constitutional and non-constitutional challenges to § 1326(b) are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Hernandez-Azua 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 AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garzar-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 919, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Hernandez-Azua properly concedes that his arguments are foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises them here to preserve them for further review.

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.
     