Raul Antonio Hernandez-Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals following his guilty plea to being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after deportation subsequent to conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez argues that the district court erroneously construed his prior conviction in Texas for aggravated assault as a crime of violence and incorrectly applied a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Hernandez correctly concedes that because he did not raise this argument in the district court our review is for plain error. See United States v. Gracia-Cantu, 302 F.3d 308, 310 (5th Cir. 2002). In light of our recent decision in United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199-01 (5th Cir. 2007), Hernandez’s argument is unavailing.

Hernandez 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. Hernandez’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 Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almen-darez-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 Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). Hernandez 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.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.