Benjamin Valle-Perches (Valle-Perches) appeals his 87-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a).

The district court sentenced VallePerches within a properly calculated advisory guideline range. Such a sentence is given “great deference,” and we infer that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Therefore, we conclude that Valle-Perches has failed to show that his sentence was unreasonable.

Valle-Perches argues, in light of Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 87-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in the 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.

Valle-Perehes’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-Torres was *300 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 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). Valle-Perches 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.

AFFIRMED.