
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos GARCIA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40893
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 4, 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, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Carlos Gareia-Ramirez appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues 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.

We review the sentence imposed for reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). As Gareia-Ramirez was sentenced at the low end of the applicable guidelines range, and he identifies no error in the guidelines calculations, we give great deference to the sentence imposed. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005). Contrary to Garcia-Ramirez’s arguments, we find that the district court did not improperly balance the sentencing factors and the sentence imposed was not greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of § 3553(a)(2). Therefore, we conclude that the 46-month sentence imposed was reasonable.

Garcia-Ramirez’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). Although Garcia-Ramirez 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. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 919, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Garcia-Ramirez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of AlmendarezTorres 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.
     