UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beltran MORALES-ROBLERO, a/k/a Rutilo Bartolon-Bartolon, a/k/a Enrique Bartolon-Bartolon, Defendant-Appellant, 362 F. App'x 374

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Beltran Morales-Roblero pleaded guilty to reentering the United States without permission after having previously been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Morales-Roblero to forty-six months of imprisonment and Morales-Ro-blero now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Morales-Roblero argues that § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional because these sections increase the statutory maximum sentence for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(

a) on the basis of a defendant’s prior criminal convictions. As Morales-Roblero l’aises this argument for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. Therefore, Morales-Roblero must establish (1) error (2) that was plain, and (3) affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We find no error, however, as Morales-Roblero correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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.