Gerardo Olvera-Vitela (Olvera) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for *640 being found present in the United States following deportation and removal, without having obtained the consent of the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He argues for the first time on appeal that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it does not require the prior aggravated felony conviction used to increase his sentence to be proven as an element of the offense. He contends that his conviction should be reformed to the lesser included offense in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and that he should be resentenced to no more than two years of imprisonment.

Olvera acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in 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 in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres. Apprendi 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Olvera’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.