MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Ramos-Contreras appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in applying an enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on Ramos-Contreras’ prior felony drug trafficking conviction. The fact of a prior conviction does not need to be admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of sentencing. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1080 n. 16 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting the continuing vitality of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998)).

The district court did not err in denying a downward departure for early disposition, because the prosecutor did not make such an offer. See United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 717-18 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding sentence was not unreasonable where defendant was denied downward departure for early disposition in a district that had not implemented a fast-track program). Similarly, the district court was not required to grant a downward departure due to Ramos-Contreras’ concession of deportation. See United States v. Martinez-Ramos, 184 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that “deportable status may not be a ground for downward departure from the applicable guideline range” for aliens convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326).

Finally, the district court properly calculated the guidelines range and considered the appropriateness of that range as applied to Ramos-Contreras in light of the statutory factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. See United States v. Plouffe, 436 F.3d 1062, 1063 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.