Jose Medina-Saldana appeals the sentence imposed following entry of his guilty plea to a charge of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Medina argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional.

Medina-Saldana acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument 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 Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.