Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar Rene Romero preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because this court’s post-Booker ** rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker. Romero concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. Romero also preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because of the court’s refusal to consider his postsentencing rehabilitation. Romero concedes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that “Booker does not give sentencing courts the discretion to impose a non-Guideline sentence based on the courts’ disagreement with Congressional and Sentencing Commission policy.” The Government’s motion for summary affir- *322 manee is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.