Tomasa Aguilera-De Flores appeals her conviction for illegal reentry into the coun *970 try after having been removed following an aggravated felony conviction. She argues (1) that the district court should have suppressed the evidence of her prior removal because that removal was fundamentally unfair 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). She acknowledges that her arguments are foreclosed, and she seeks to preserve them for further review.

Aguilera-De Flores’s argument that her inability to seek discretionary relief under INA § 212(c) in her prior removal proceedings rendered those proceedings fundamentally unfair and that evidence of her prior removal should have been suppressed 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). Her argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi is also without merit. 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.