Antonio Loredo-Torres appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325.

Loredo-Torres argues that the district court erred when it relied on information *446 contained in the presentence report (PSR) to enhance his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii) based on a determination that he had a prior conviction for an alien smuggling offense committed for profit. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 319 F.3d 677, 678 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 540 U.S. 918, 124 S.Ct. 311, 157 L.Ed.2d 213 (2003), which held that, to determine whether a defendant’s prior conviction satisfied U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii), the district court was not limited to consideration of conduct charged in the indictment but could go beyond the statute of conviction and the charging instrument. Sanchez-Garcia forecloses Loredo-Torres’ argument, and the district court did not err by considering the PSR to determine whether to apply U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii).

Loredo-Torres also argues that the district court erred when it applied U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii) because transportation of illegal aliens is not “alien smuggling.” Loredo-Torres concedes that this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Solis-Campozano, 312 F.3d 164, 167-68 (5th Cir. 2002), cert, denied, 538 U.S. 991, 123 S.Ct. 1811, 155 L.Ed.2d 689 (2003), in which this court held that the term “alien smuggling offense,” as used in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(vii), includes the offense of transporting aliens within the United States. Based on Solis-Campozano, the 16-level increase to Loredo-Torres’ offense level was not error.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.