Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Sergio Antonio Blanco-Salinas (Blanco) 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 *298 condemned in Booker. Blanco 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. In light of Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), the issue remains foreclosed. Blan-co also preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because the illegal reentry guideline is unduly severe. Blanco concedes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that “Booker does not give sentencing courts the discretion to impose a non-Guideline sentence based on the courts’ disagreement with Congressional and Sentencing Commission policy.” Finally, Blanco 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.