Agustín Mondragon-Diaz (Mondragon) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for unlawful reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Mondragon asserts that his sentence is contrary to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and unreasonable as a matter of law. He contends that this court’s post -Booker decisions have effectively reinstated the mandatory guideline scheme condemned by Booker.

Mondragon concedes that this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but he raises it to preserve it in light of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006), and Claiborne v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006). However, Rita now has been decided, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that a “court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines.” Rita v. United States, — U.S.-,---, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (quote at 2462). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has vacated the underlying Claiborne decision as moot due to the death of the petitioner. Claiborne v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2245, 167 L.Ed.2d 1080 (2007), vacating as moot 439 F.3d 479 (8th Cir. 2006). In light of these decisions, Mondragon’s argument remains foreclosed.

Mondragon additionally 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. Mondragon’s 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 he contends that AlmendarezTorres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it 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 Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garzar-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005); see also RangelReyes v. United States, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2873,165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2007). Mondragon 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.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.