Jose Jaramillo-Dominguez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegally entering the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Jaramillo raises an issue that he concedes is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve it for further review.

Jaramillo argues that his prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance should not be considered an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 705-711 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1021, 123 S.Ct. 1948, 155 L.Ed.2d 864 (2003). Jaramillo’s argument that the rule of lenity is applicable is without merit because the meaning of “aggravated felony” is not ambiguous. See United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.