Jorge Alberto Cordova-Barraza pleaded guilty to one charge of illegal reentry into *348 the United States, and the district court sentenced him to serve 46 months in prison. Cordova-Barraza appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court plainly erred by determining that his prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) was for a drug trafficking offense and by sentencing him in accordance with this determination. Cordova-Barraza argues that his prior conviction does not qualify as a drug trafficking offense as that term is used in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). We disagree. A comparison of the statute and Guideline at issue shows that a conviction under § 841(a)(1) qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). See § 841(a)(1), § 2L1.2, comment, (n l(B)(iv)). Cordova-Barraza’s argument to the contrary is unavailing.

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Cordova-Barraza challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.