Uriel Gutierrez-Medina (Gutierrez) appeals the sentence following his guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United States following removal. The district court determined that Gutierrez’s second prior California conviction for possession of methamphetamine qualified as an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C).

Gutierrez argues that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), his second conviction for simple possession of methamphetamine under California law does not constitute an “aggravated felony.” He contends that his two prior drug possession convictions did not establish a prior aggravated felony conviction because the Government did not plead and prove the prior convictions, and he was not convicted under California recidivist enhancement procedures. He recognizes that the Court in Lopez, 127 S.Ct. at 630 n. 6, observed in a footnote that 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) makes a second possession conviction a federal felony if the Government shows knowing possession and proves a prior possession conviction through the procedures specified in 21 U.S.C. § 851. However, he argues that under Lopez, the second state possession conviction must be brought under state recidivist procedures that conform to the procedures in § 844 and § 851.

We recently rejected the argument raised by Gutierrez. See United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court properly determined that Gutierrez’s second prior California conviction for possession of *422 methamphetamine was an “aggravated felony” under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). See id.

AFFIRMED.