Marco Antonio Cruz-Perez appeals from his conviction of illegal reentry following deportation after conviction of an aggra *458 vated felony. He contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for suppression of evidence and dismissal of his indictment because his previous removal proceeding violated the Due Process Clause due to the immigration judge’s failure to inform him of the possibility of discretionary relief from deportation; that the district court erred by treating his two state-court robbery convictions separately when calculating his criminal history score; and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is facially unconstitutional.

Cruz-Perez’s argument that his previous removal order violated the Due Process Clause is foreclosed. United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1135, 123 S.Ct. 922, 154 L.Ed.2d 827 (2003). The district court’s finding that Cruz-Perez’s February 1995 robberies were not informally consolidated and were unrelated was not clearly erroneous. See Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 64-66, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001). Cruz-Perez’s robberies were factually distinct, and they were neither formally nor informally consolidated in any manner recognized by this court. See United States v. Huskey, 137 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Fitzhugh, 984 F.2d 143, 147 n. 18 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally, Cruz-Perez’s argument regarding the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed. United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.