Adrian Romero-Hernandez appeals his conviction and sentence following his plea of guilty to one count of unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). Romero-Hernandez first contends that his 46-month sentence, which was within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range, was unreasonable. According to Romero-Hernandez, this court’s applica *960 tion of a presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentences effectively renders the Guidelines mandatory in contravention of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Romero-Hernandez’s argument is foreclosed by circuit and Supreme Court precedent. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2463-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Romero-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. 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), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.