Mario Alberto Pazzi-De Hoyos pleaded guilty to illegal entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pazzi-De Hoyos’ supervised release with respect to a prior conviction was also revoked. Pazzi-De Hoyos appeals his conviction and revocation, arguing that (1) venue in the Northern District of Texas was improper with respect to his illegal reentry guilty plea conviction and (2) the district court erred when it used his prior aggravated felony conviction to enhance his illegal reentry sentence.

Pazzi-De Hoyos’ physical presence as well as the illegal status of his presence was discovered by immigration authorities when he was within the Northern District of Texas. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, venue was proper in the Northern District. See United States v. Asibor, 109 F.3d 1023, 1037 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Santana-Castellano, 74 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 1996).

Pazzi-De Hoyos also 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. Pazzi-De Hoyos’ 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 Pazzi-De Hoyos contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). Pazzi-De Hoyos 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.