MEMORANDUM**

Ruben Villaseñor-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Villaseñor-Garcia contends that the district court erred by increasing his sentence above 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)’s two-*672year statutory maximum based on a prior conviction that was neither proven to a jury nor admitted by Villaseñor-Garcia. He argues that the constitutional doubt doctrine requires that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), be limited to the holding that a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty need not be alleged in the indictment when the conviction, unlike here, is admitted as part of a guilty plea. He also argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), which increases the statutory maximum based on prior convictions not proved to a jury, is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

These contentions are foreclosed. United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting contention that the government is required to plead prior convictions in the indictment and prove them to a jury unless the defendant admits the prior convictions); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that we continue to be bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres that a district judge may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

AFFIRMED.