Ceasar Limon-Pacias appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission, following removal. He contends that his sentence violates due process because it was enhanced under § 1326(b)(2) based on. a prior conviction that was not charged in the indictment. Limon-Pacias acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but raises the issue to preserve it for further review. He contends that the Supreme Court is likely to revisit its decision, which has been cast into doubt by Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. —, — n. 1, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160 n. 1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

In Almendarez-Toms, the Supreme Court held that § 1326(b)(2)’s enhancement provision was a sentencing factor and not a separate criminal offense which must be alleged in the indictment and submitted to a jury to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Although the Supreme Court has expressed some doubt as to whether Almendarez-Toms was correctly decided, it has declined to revisit that decision. See Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2160 n. 1; Apprendi 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Because Almendarez-Torres remains binding precedent, Limon-Pacias’s argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Wallace, No. 12-51192, 759 F.3d 486, 2014 WL 3558003, at 9-10 (5th Cir. July 18, 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.