Sergio Rosario Vega-Soto appeals the 96-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation. Vega-Soto argues that his sentence is unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He does not challenge the calculation of his guidelines sentencing range.

A sentence, such as Vega-Soto’s, “within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). We note that the district court considered and rejected Vega-Soto’s arguments for a departure or variance based on the application of the § 3553(a) factors to his case. Vega-Soto has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005).

Vega-Soto also argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 96-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He 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. Vega-Soto’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 he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almen *362 darez-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). Vega-Soto 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.