Marcos Tulio Madrid appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. He argues that the district court plainly erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for simple possession of crack as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), when that same offense was punishable only as a misdemeanor under federal law. This issue, however, is foreclosed by United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 1997), and, *786 therefore, Madrid has not demonstrated plain error.

Madrid concedes that the issue whether the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(b)(1) & (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and he raises it solely to preserve its further review by the Supreme Court. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348. This court must therefore follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torr-es “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.