OPINION

Appellant Randall Austin appeals the District Court’s imposition of a 240-month term of imprisonment following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The District Court imposed the sentence after finding that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the criteria for application of the Armed Career Criminal (“ACC”) enhancement of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) to Austin had been satisfied. Had the District Court not applied the ACC enhancement, Austin would have faced a statutory maximum sentence of 120 months in prison.

Austin raises a single issue on appeal, namely whether the government’s failure to charge all of the ACC predicate offenses in the indictment and to prove them to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. This argument is clearly foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See United States v. Vargas, All F.3d 94, 105 (3d Cir. 2007) (declaring that Almendarez *151 Torres “continues to bind our decisions”); United States v. Coleman,, 451 F.3d 154, 161 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating that “Almendarez-Torres remains good law”); United States v. Ordaz, 398 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that “[t]he holding in Almendarez-Torres remains binding law”) We will affirm.