MEMORANDUM **

Amado Salvador Candalosa-Estrada appeals the judgment entered following his jury conviction and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Candalosa-Estrada contends that the district court erred by imposing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1) a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based on a prior felony conviction that was not proved to a jury or admitted by Candalosa-Estrada. This contention is foreclosed. United States v. Delaney, 427 F.3d 1224, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The Supreme Court has made clear that the fact of a prior conviction need not be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant to satisfy the Sixth Amendment.”); United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1228 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting contention that prior convictions must be proved to a jury if not admitted by the defendant and reaffirming that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has not been overruled).

Our precedent likewise forecloses Candalosa-Estrada’s contention that, in order to support the prior-conviction enhancement, either an admission or jury finding is required as to the fact that the deportation occurred after he suffered the prior conviction. See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2001) *559(rejecting contention that the fact of the temporal relationship of the removal to the prior conviction is beyond the scope of Supreme Court’s recidivism exception). Candalosa-Estrada’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 1826(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, supra., at 285, 118 S.Ct. 1219.

AFFIRMED.