Carlos Trevino-Salazar (Trevino) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for transporting undocumented aliens within the United States by means of a motor vehicle for private financial gain. Although Trevino concedes that his sentence is to be reviewed for reasonableness under this court’s precedent, Trevino also asserts that the presumption of reasonableness standard is unconstitutional. Trevino aeknowledges that this argument is foreclosed and raises it only to preserve for further review. This court is bound by the precedent of previous panels absent “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

Trevino also argues that his sentence of 44 months of imprisonment, which was within the applicable advisory sentencing guideline range, is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the district court failed to consider mitigating factors. Given Trevino’s extensive criminal history and the seriousness of his instant offense, he has not shown that the sentence was unreasonable or that this court should not defer to the district court’s determinations at sentencing. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.