OPINION

Maria Luisa Martin appeals her conviction and sentence pursuant to a violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2000). Martin’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, he argues *185 that § 1326 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Neither Martin nor the United States filed a brief. In accordance with Anders, we have considered counsel’s brief and have examined the entire record for meritorious issues. We find no error and affirm.

On appeal, Martin’s counsel argues that § 1326 is unconstitutional under the holding in Apprendi. We have reviewed the record and find this appeal foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and by our decision in United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2606, 153 L.Ed.2d 792 (2002).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Martin’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.