Pedro Gomez-Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea *747 conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. Gomez-Gonzalez argues that in light of recent Supreme Court precedent the sentencing provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional and that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), should be overruled.

Gomez-Gonzalez argues that the rulings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), cast doubt upon the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres.

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 Court’s decision in Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2537, and more recently in United States v. Booker, — U.S.-,-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), also did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. This court therefore must follow AlmendarezTorres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.