In two consolidated appeals, Juan Antonio Pina-Martinez (Pina) challenges his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation and the revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release. The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pina on appeal previously moved for leave to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s motion was denied and the parties were ordered to brief the issues of whether this court could consider Pina’s appeals despite his apparently untimely notices of appeal and whether this court should require withdrawing counsel to certify that the Government would assert the untimeliness of a notice of appeal.

We pretermit the issue of the timeliness of Pina’s notices of appeal because there is no jurisdictional impediment to reaching the merits of the case and his appeal fails on the merits. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir. 2007) cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 728, 169 L.Ed.2d 568 (2007). In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Pina challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 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 issue is foreclosed. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

AFFIRMED.