
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Ernesto CRUZ-PAGUADA, a.k.a. Pedro Pablo Agurcia, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-16444
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 17, 2010.
    Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James H. Burke, Jr., Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ramon Ernesto Cruz-Paguada appeals his sentence of 46 months of imprisonment, which was imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Cruz-Paguada argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on his prior conviction for smuggling illegal aliens into the United States, id. § 1324, when that conviction was not charged in his indictment. Cruz-Paguada’s argument is foreclosed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). “[W]e are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.” United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir.2001); see also United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir.2006). The district court did not err, much less plainly err, by enhancing Cruz-Paguada’s sentence.

Cruz-Paguada’s sentence is AFFIRMED.  