Jose Vladimir Hernandez-Gonzalez appeals his guilty-plea conviction of being an alien unlawfully present in the United States after having been deported and having been previously convicted of an aggravated felony. Hernandez-Gonzalez argues for the first time on appeal that the viability of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is in doubt given the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He also argues that if Almendarez-Torres were overruled and Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), were held to apply to the federal Sentencing Guidelines, Hernandez-Gonzalez’s sentence could not be enhanced by his prior convictions unless those convictions were found beyond a reasonable doubt or Hernandez-Gonzalez admitted to them.

As Hernadez-Gonzalez concedes, Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). As Hernandez-Gonzalez also concedes, his Blakely argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.