Alejandro Morales-Vega (“Morales”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry following deportation. Morales contends 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), claiming a majority of the Supreme Court feels Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), was incorrectly decided. Morales acknowledges that this contention is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but raises it to preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Morales seeks remand pursuant to Fed. R.Crim. P. 36 for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. The Government concedes that remand is appropriate because the written judgment does not reflect that, at sentencing, the district court orally granted its motion to remit the $100 special assessment. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED for the sole purpose of allowing the district court to correct the judgment to reflect that the $100 special assessment is abated.

AFFIRMED, REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT