
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rolando CARRERA-REYES, aka Carlos Miranda-Ixoba, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-50336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 8, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 25, 2001.
    Before BEEZER, O’SCANNLAIN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rolando Carrera-Reyes appeals his 48-month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of being an 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.

Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Carrera-Reyes contends that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level by 16 points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(l)(A) (1998) because the prior conviction was not charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He further contends that Apprendi overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). CarreraReyes’ contentions lack merit in light of our recent decision in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir. 2000).

We review de novo the legality of a sentence and the purely legal question of whether Apprendi requires that CarreraReyes be resentenced. Id. at 412-13.

Because Almendarez-Torres remains precedential law, the district court did not err by considering the prior aggravated felony convictions in sentencing Carrera-Reyes for illegal reentry without proof of the prior aggravated felony beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 414 (concluding that Apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions, specifically preserving the holding in AlmendarezTorres).

Additionally, Carrera-Reyes’ contention that Almendarez-Torres requires that he admit guilt of the prior aggravated felony at the change of plea hearing is without merit because “Apprendi held that all prior convictions-not just those admitted on the record — [are] exempt from Apprendi’s general rule.” Id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     