Pedro Salazar-Garcia was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported and was sentenced to serve 70 months in prison. He contends that our rulings giving a presumption of reasonableness to guidelines sentences effectively reinstate mandatory guidelines sentencing and render his sentence unreasonable as a matter of law. Salazar-Garcia’s arguments concerning this court’s presumption of reasonableness are foreclosed by both this court’s caselaw, see United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006), and the Supreme Court’s decision in Rita v. United States, — U.S. -,---, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-66, 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), Salazar-Garcia challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 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 *662 this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.