Felipe Valentin Saldana-Almanza (“Saldana”) pleaded guilty to one count of being found in the United States after deportation following conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced Saldana to 57 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.

Saldana argues, for the first time on appeal, that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Saldana also argues that a conflict exists between the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment because the written judgment contains a condition of supervised release prohibiting the possession of a dangerous weapon, but at the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention this prohibition. For the reasons set forth in United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the district court’s omission of the dangerous-weapon prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment.

AFFIRMED.