Juan Munoz-Alarcon (“Munoz”) challenges his sentence following a guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Munoz argues that the district court plainly erred by enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on a Texas conviction for aggravated assault. Munoz contends that the enhancement is *681 improper because Texas law provides that a conviction for aggravated assault may be based on conduct that is merely reckless. As the United States Sentencing Commission has identified aggravated assault as a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, by imposing the sentence enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2., comment. (n.1(b)(iii)); see United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 275 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 253, — L.Ed.2d-(2005); see also United States v. Rayo-Valdez, 302 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002).

Munoz’s contention that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), should be interpreted to overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is foreclosed by existing circuit precedent; however, Munoz raises the issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review. 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). We 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.