Manuel Joel Villalobos-Rios, having pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, challenges his sentence on two bases.

He first challenges its reasonableness, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (requiring, inter alia, “reasonableness” review of post-Booker sentences, to be guided by the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). After offense-level adjustments for a prior drug-trafficking conviction and acceptance of responsibility, his offense level was 21, corresponding to an advisory Guidelines range of 41-51 months imprisonment. Villalobos requested a sentence below that range. The imposed 41-month sentence was within, and at the low end of, it.

Post-Booker, sentences are reviewed for reasonableness. E.g., United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th Cir. 2006). Because the sentence was within the properly-calculated Guideline range (Villalobos does not contend otherwise), it is presumed reasonable. E.g., United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Such a sentence is given “great deference”, and we infer the sentencing court “has considered all the [§ 3553(a) ] factors for a fair sentence”. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Further, when the court states it is imposing a sentence within the Guideline range, as was done here, “little explanation [for such sentence] is required”. Id. Villalobos has failed to rebut his sentence’s presumed reasonableness. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554 — 55.

Villalobos also challenges, in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated-felony convictions as sentencing factors, rather than elements of the offense. As he concedes, this challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See, e.g., 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). Nonetheless, he raises it in order to preserve its further review.

AFFIRMED.