
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge MACEDO-MOLINA, a/k/a Guijul Siriguanico, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4925.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 3, 2001.
    Decided July 20, 2001.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, NC, for appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney (Interim), Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott L. Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Macedo-Molina pled guilty to one count of re-entry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326 (West 1999 & Supp.2000). The district court found Macedo-Molina had been convicted of two prior aggravated felonies, making the statutory maximum sentence a twenty-year term of imprisonment. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(b)(2). Macedo-Molina argues he should have been sentenced under the provisions of § 1326(a), which provides a maximum sentence of two years, because the Government did not charge a violation of § 1326(b)(2) in the indictment. We affirm.

Because the Supreme Court has held § 1326(b)(2) sets forth a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offense, this claim is without merit. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Contrary to Macedo-Molina’s assertions, we find Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000) (finding Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 1214, 149 L.Ed.2d 126 (2001); United States v. Gatewood, 230 F.3d 186, 192 (6th Cir.2000) (finding that, despite Apprendi, Almendarez-Torres remains the law); see also Columbia Union Coll. v. Clarke, 159 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir.1998) (stating that lower courts should not presume the Supreme Court has overruled one of its cases by implication; courts must follow case law that directly controls unless clearly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court case).

Consequently, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  