Victor Torres-Nava (Torres) appeals the 48-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court erred in assessing a 16-level sentencing enhancement for his prior felony conviction for sexual assault of a child under Tex. Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2) because the conviction did not constitute a “crime of violence” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).

The argument is without merit. A conviction under § 22.011(a)(2) “meets a common-sense as well as a generic, contemporary definition of statutory rape,” and it is thus the equivalent of an enumerated offense which triggers the enhancement. United States v. Alvarado-Hernandez, 465 F.3d 188, 189-90 (5th Cir. 2006).

Torres also challenges 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. 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). Athough he contends that Almendarez-Torres 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). Torres properly concedes that his argu *361 merit is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.