Ricardo Montano-Lara appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the district court misunderstood its sentencing discretion under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He concedes that, because he failed to object on this basis in district court, this issue is reviewed only for plain error. Examination of the sentencing transcript does not indicate that the district court failed to recognize its proper role in the post-Booker sentencing scheme. Accordingly, Montano-Lara has not shown plain error on this basis.

Montano-Lara’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Montano-Lara contends that AlmendarezTorres 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). Montano-Lara 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.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.