Christian Alfredo Prado-Vasquez appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by attempting to enter the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 46-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.

Prado-Vasquez’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-Tor-res was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almen-darez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, *273 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Prado-Vasquez 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. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.