Maria Isabel Perea-De Jara appeals from her guilty-plea conviction for attempting to illegally reenter the United *510 States after being previously deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. For the first time on appeal, Perea-De Jara argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in her case because it does not require the fact of a prior felony or aggravated felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. She thus contends that her sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Perea-De Jara acknowledges that her argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but 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). She seeks to preserve her argument for further review. 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). 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 marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, as Perea-De Jara’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.