Nicholas Maldonado-Garcia (Maldonado) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Maldonado contends that the district court erred in treating his Texas burglary of a habitation conviction as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). As Maldonado con *399 cedes, his argument has been rejected by this court. See United States v. ValdezMaltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 265, 166 L.Ed.2d 205 (2006); United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1199,126 S.Ct. 1398,164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006).

Maldonado also challenges, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Maldonado contends that AlmendarezTorres was 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. 2005). Maldonado 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.