Hector Otoniel Flores-Esparza appeals his 46-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry following deportation. He contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to meet the objectives of § 3553(a)(2).

The record reflects that the district court considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a) when it determined that a 46-month term of imprisonment was a fair and reasonable sentence in Flores-Esparza’s case. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Flores-Esparza’s sentence fell at the lowest end of his properly calculated advisory guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). Flores-Esparza has failed to rebut that presumption. See id.

Flores-Esparza challenges 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Flores-Esparza’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 Flores-Esparza 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). Flores-Esparza acknowledges the Supreme Court’s decision in AlmendarezTorres, but raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.