Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Felipe De Jesus Contreras-Hurtado (Contreras) 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. Contreras concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. Contreras also 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.