Adrian Arredondo-Rodríguez appeals from his guilty plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arredondo-Rodríguez argues that his sentence “is contrary to [United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) ] and unreasonable as a matter of law.” He contends that this court’s post-Booker decisions have effectively reinstated the mandatory guideline scheme condemned by Booker and further argues that, post -Booker, a district court in imposing sentence should be allowed to disagree with policy decisions of the Sentencing Commission.

Post-Booker, appellate courts are to review sentences for reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-63, 125 S.Ct. 738; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2005). “If the sentencing judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated Guide *377 line range, in our reasonableness review we will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. “Given the deference due the sentencing judge’s discretion under [Booker ], it will be rare for a reviewing court to say such a sentence is ‘unreasonable.’ ” Id. Arredondo-Rodríguez identifies no error in the guidelines calculations, and he was sentenced at the low end of the applicable guidelines range. We conclude that Arredondo-Rodriguez’s sentence was reasonable. See id. at 519-20.

Arredondo-Rodriguez’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Arredondo-Rodríguez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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). Arredondo-Rodríguez 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.