Walter Sinisterra-Banguer appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sinisterra-Banguer argues that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based upon his Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. As Sinisterra-Banguer concedes, his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 2006 WL 2094539 (U.S. Oct.2, 2006) (No. 06-5473); United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1398, 164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006).

Sinisterra-Banguer also challenges, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Sinisterra-Banguer’s constitutional challenge to § 1326 is foreclosed by Almenda-rez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although he contends that Almen-darez-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 *659 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). Sinisterra-Banguer 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.

AFFIRMED.