Ramiro Mata-Ortiz (Mata) appeals following his guilty plea to being illegally present in the United States following a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The district court increased Mata’s base offense level by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) because it determined that Mata’s prior conviction in Tennessee for reckless aggravated assault was a crime of violence. Mata argues that the enhancement was improper because the Tennessee offense is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of aggravated assault. Mata’s argument is unavailing in light of our decision in United States v. Mungia-Portillo, 484 F.3d 813, 816-17 (5th Cir. 2007).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Mata 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. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.