Jose Luis Espinosa-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the district court erred by imposing a sentence that exceeded the pertinent guidelines recommendation. Our review of the record, including the exhaustive reasons given by the district court in support of its judgment, shows no reversible error in connection with Espinosa-Hernandez’s sentence. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706-08 (5th Cir. 2006).

Espinosa-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. Espinosa-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 Almendarez-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). Espinosa-Hernandez properly concedes that his argument is *639 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.