Luis Manuel Bedolla-Almanza appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to attempted illegal reentry. He argues pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), should be overruled. He concedes that his constitutional argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, and he raises it solely to preserve its further review by the Supreme Court.

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). The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Shepard v. United States, — U.S.-,-- -& n. 5, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 1262-63 & n. 5, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 & n. 5 (2005), United States v. Booker, — U.S.-,-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2537, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), also did not overrule AlmendarezTorres. We therefore 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).

AFFIRMED.