Ivan Ricardo Cifuentes-Caycedo appeals his conviction after a jury trial for transporting an alien within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), (a)(l)(A)(v)(II), and (a)(l)(B)(ii). Cifuentes contends that the district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior conviction for aiding and abetting an undocumented alien to elude examination. Because the evidence was relevant and its probative value was not outweighed by any threat of prejudice, the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise. See United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc).

Cifuentes contends that his sentence should be vacated in light of Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). We have held that Blakely does not apply to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263). He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Pineiro, but he states that he is raising this issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n. 34 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.