MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Rivera-Garcia appeals his 63-month sentence following his guilty plea conviction for being an alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Rivera-Garcia challenges his conviction on three grounds. First, Rivera contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional because it permits the district court to determine “sentencing factors.” Second, he contends that the district court improperly imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because the government neither pleaded in the indictment nor established through the guilty plea that Rivera-Garcia had sustained a prior aggravated felony conviction. Third, Gareia-Rivera contends that following Apprendi his case is distinguished from the specific facts and holding in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). These arguments are foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001).

Rivera-Garcia further contends that the district court erred by relying solely on his pre-sentence report to determine that his prior felony was sufficient to enhance his sentence pursuant to § 1326(b)(2). This contention also lacks merit because a presentence report which contains the specific statute underlying the aggravated felony on which the 16 point enhancement is based is sufficient to satisfy a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Romero-Rendon, 220 F.3d 1159, 1161-62 *381(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1043, 121 S.Ct. 640, 148 L.Ed.2d 546 (2000).

AFFIRMED.