Rodolfo Carillo-Galvan appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Carillo-Galvan concedes that both of his appellate arguments are foreclosed. He raises the issues to preserve them for further review.

Carillo-Galvan argues that his prior state felony convictions for possession of a *397 controlled substance were not “aggravated felonies” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) or 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1948, 155 L.Ed.2d 864 (2003).

Carillo-Galvan also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Carillo-Galvaris argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.