Benito Mena-Segoviano appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the district court erred by departing upwardly from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines based upon his criminal history. As Mena-Segoviano concedes, the departure is reviewed only for plain error because he did not object on this basis in district court. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2006). Because Mena-Segoviano has failed to show that the district court’s decision to depart upwardly was clear or obvious, he does not warrant relief on this issue. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

Mena-Segoviano also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His 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 Mena-Segoviano contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *269 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). Mena-Segoviano properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here solely to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.