Carlos Morales-Jimenez (Morales) appeals his conviction and 57-month sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Morales argues that the district court erred in allowing the Government to supplement the record on remand with certified copies of documents proving that his prior conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of violence that warranted the 16-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). He also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

At Morales’s sentencing, defense counsel challenged the lack of evidence presented by the Government to establish that his conviction for a burglary of a habitation constituted a § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) crime of violence. At the re-sentencing, defense counsel challenged the Government’s failure to admit into evidence, at the original sentencing hearing, the documents necessary to establish the fact of Morales’s prior conviction.

Morales does not challenge the accuracy of the documents provided to defense counsel at the original sentencing, nor does he argue that his burglary conviction does not warrant the § 2 L1.2(b) (1) (A) (ii) increase. The Government’s failure to formally introduce certified copies of the indictment and commitment order was not reversible error. See United States v. Ramirez, 367 F.3d 274, 276-77 (5th Cir. 2004). The district court did not err by allowing the Government to respond to defense counsel’s objection at the re-sentencing by admitting evidence in support of its position. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(2).

Morales’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 Morales contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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). Morales properly *276 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. Because Morales has shown no error in the judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.