Jose Luis Matute appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found present in the United States following deportation without having obtained the consent of the Attorney General or *292 the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Matute argues, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions, of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are elements of the offense, not sentence enhancements, making those provisions unconstitutional. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but raises it for possible review by the Supreme Court.

“Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres.” United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2001); see Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90,120 S.Ct. 2348. We must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres unless the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it. See Rivera, 265 F.3d at 312.

AFFIRMED.