Ernesto Ruben Cavazos-Rodriguez appeals his guilty plea conviction and 65-month sentence for illegal reentry after removal. Cavazos-Rodriguez argues that the district court committed error, plain or otherwise, by applying the “aggravated felony” enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on the finding that he had committed an aggravated felony in 2003 and had been removed in 2004. Ca-vazos-Rodriguez argues that the fact of his 2004 removal was not alleged in his indictment, proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, or admitted by him.

Because the indictment alleged only reentry after deportation without any specification of the date of deportation, much less any reference to a prior conviction, and because the Government failed to prove a deportation date at rearraignment, we conclude that the district court plainly erred in finding that Cavazos-Rodriguez was removed in 2004 for purposes of increasing his sentence beyond the two-year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a). See United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 506 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Almendarez-Torres is limited to prior convictions and ... any other fact used to increase a sentence beyond a statutory maximum must be proven to a jury.”); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). This error seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d at 506. In the exercise of our discretion, relief is warranted. See id. We vacate Cavazos-Rodriguez’s sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with Rojas-Luna.

Because Cavazos-Rodriguez is not subject to the sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b)(2), we need not address Cava-zos-Rodriguez’s argument that the district court reversibly erred by treating his 2003 Texas assault conviction as an “aggravated felony” warranting an eight-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Id. at 507 n. 3.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.