Jose Humberto Ramirez-Rosas pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. RamirezRosas argues on appeal that his sentence was unreasonable because his sentence was greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He does not challenge the district court’s calculation of his guidelines sentencing range.
*380Because Ramirez-Rosas’s sentence was within a properly calculated guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, we infer that the district court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). “[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Ramirez-Rosas has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See id.; Mares, 402 F.3d at 519.
Ramirez-Rosas also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). His 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 Ramirez-Rosas contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Ramirez-Rosas 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.
AFFIRMED.