Ricardo Manuel Alvarado-De Hoyos (“Alvarado”) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. Alvarado challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (2) and, additionally, the district court’s application of the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.

Alvarado’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Edüd 350 (1998). Although Alvarado 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 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). Alvarado 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.

Alvarado also contends that the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the mandatory Guidelines regime held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The Government concedes the error and admits that it cannot carry its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, Alvarado’s sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. See id. at 466.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.