Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Tomas Jarquin-Espinosa (Jar-quin) 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. Jarquin 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 *330 have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. Jarquin also preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because the illegal reentry guideline is unduly severe. Jarquin 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.” Finally, Jarquin raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.