MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Hilario Meza-Estrada appeals from his conviction and 70-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to being an illegal alien found in the United States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Meza-Estrada contends that the district court erred by increasing his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on *545judge-found facts, when he did not admit and a jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt the facts of his prior conviction and/or its temporal relationship to his deportation. He further contends that the constitutional avoidance doctrine requires this court to interpret 8 U.S.C. § 1826(a) in a manner that would limit his sentence to two years imprisonment. He also contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), does not apply here because it was based on a Fifth Amendment and not a Sixth Amendment challenge. Finally, Meza-Estrada contends that in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, and changes to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), Almendarez-Torres is not binding precedent.

These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting the contention that the government is required to plead prior convictions in the indictment and prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury unless defendant admits the prior conviction in his guilty plea); 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); United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 102A-25 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting the contention that the fact of the temporal relationship between the deportation and the prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s recidivism exception); United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that Almendarez-Torres is “dispositive” in rejecting Sixth Amendment claim).

Meza-Estrada next contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We disagree. The fact that Meza-Estrada received a higher sentence than he had anticipated is not a “fair and just reason” for withdrawal. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Accordingly, Meza-Estrada has not met his burden of showing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. See id.

AFFIRMED.