Mendoza-Zaragoza

This appeal arises from an arguable ambiguity in our cases applying Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), to indictments and sentences under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We now eliminate that ambiguity, and clarify that an indictment charging the illegal reentry of a previously removed alien may support an increased maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2) — a sentence enhancement applicable to aliens removed after an aggravated felony conviction — even if it alleges the date of the prior removal without specifying the relative date of the prior conviction. The date of an alien’s removal is the only fact “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction ... that increases the penalty for [the] crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” of two years. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . Therefore, with the removal date properly established, the district court may determine whether the prior felony conviction predated the defendant’s removal. Accordingly, when the indictment alleges the removal date, a district court does not abuse its discretion by requiring the defendant to admit his removal date as the factual basis for a guilty plea to…