Cecilio Perez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the presumption of reasonableness this court accords sentences imposed within the advisory guideline range erroneously constrains the district court’s discretion. Specifically, Perez argues that the validity of this court’s sentencing framework after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is under consideration by the Supreme Court in Rita v. United States, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006) and Claiborne v. United States, — U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006). Thus, he argues that if the Supreme Court were to find this framework inconsistent with Booker, he would be entitled to resentencing.

Because an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling pri- or precedent is required to alter this court’s precedent, the grants of certiorari in Rita and Claiborne have no impact on this court’s precedent. See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). In the instant case, the district court considered the Guidelines and determined that a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range was appropriate. Because the court exercised its discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range, this court may infer, in its *301 reasonableness review, that the court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). This court has examined the record and concludes that the sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable.

AFFIRMED.