MEMORANDUM **

Humberto Diaz-Valdez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Diaz-Valdez contends that the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to *5488 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) to more than the two-year maximum set forth in § 1326(a) on the basis of the finding that he had a prior felony conviction that preceded his deportation when those facts were not charged in the indictment, admitted, or proved to a jury. He argues that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance 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 the maximum penalty may be increased on the basis of a judicial finding regarding the fact of a prior conviction, and not be extended to allow judicial findings regarding facts about a prior conviction. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2001).

Diaz-Valdez also contends that intervening Supreme Court decisions have overruled Almendarez-Torres and this court’s decisions interpreting Almendarez-Torres to allow sentence increases upon a judicial finding of the fact of a prior conviction. As he recognizes, this contention also is foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.