Joel Garcia-Saldivar appeals his conviction of being found in the United States after having been previously removed following an aggravated-felony conviction. He argues (1) that his prior removal was invalid, and the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment was error and (2) that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s sentencing provisions are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed, and he seeks to preserve them for further review.

Garcia-Saldivar’s argument that the failure to inform him of his eligibility to apply for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (INA § 212(c)) rendered the prior removal proceedings fundamentally unfair is without merit. United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1135, 123 S.Ct. 922, 154 L.Ed.2d 827 (2003). Also without merit is his argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.