Carlos Lozano-Herrera (“Lozano”) pleaded guilty to one count of being found in the United States without having obtained permission to re-enter after deportation and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment. Lozano argues, for the first time on appeal, that 8 U .S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Loza *632 no’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Also for the first time on appeal, Lozano, relying on the possibility that Almendarez-Torres mil be overruled, as well as on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), argues that the federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional because they permit the enhancement of a sentence based on prior convictions. Lozano’s argument fails because Almendarez-Torres has not been overruled and because the enhancement of a sentence based on prior convictions does not violate the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Booker, -U.S.-,-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.