Allan Martin Bennett appeals the 132-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He challenges the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range, relying on the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006). Because an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling prior precedent is required to alter this court’s precedent, the grant of certiorari in Rita has no impact on this court’s precedent. See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). And now the Supreme Court has decided Rita, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007), upholding the rule of this court.

Bennett’s sentence was within a properly calculated advisory guideline range and is entitled to great deference. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005). But aside from that deference, because of this record and because the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we conclude that Bennett has failed to demonstrate that his sentence was unreasonable. See id. at 519-20. The *66 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.