UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco RAMOS-CISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant, 209 F. App'x 427

PER CURIAM: Francisco Ramos-Cisneros (Ramos) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 36-month sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(

a) and (b). He asserts that the district court erred in sentencing him within the advisory guidelines range when similarly-situated defendants receive downward departures for entering early pleas in districts that have fast-track early disposition programs. According to Ramos, the district court’s failure to consider this disparity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) renders his sentence unreasonable. We recently rejected this argument in United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir.2006), petition for cert. filed (Nov. 13, 2006) (No. 06-7792).

Ramos also asserts that the district court’s failure to specifically address the sentencing disparity issue under § 3553(a)(6) is reversible error. The district court did not plainly err. When a defendant is sentenced within the properly-calculated guidelines range, we “infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence.” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706-07 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally, Ramos asserts that the “aggravated felony” provision in § 1326 causes it to be unconstitutional.

Ramos’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 Ramos 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 AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garzar-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.