22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T42e,MEMORANDUM 2 Santiago Alvarado-Gongora appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Avarado-Gongora contends that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level by 16 points, because the fact that his prior deportation followed an aggravated felony conviction was neither admitted nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. He further contends that Apprendi calls into question the con *486 tinuing validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Alvarado-Gongora’s contentions, however, are foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 , 413-14 (9th Cir.2000), as amended (Feb. 8, 2001). 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T449,

MEMORANDUM 2

Santiago Alvarado-Gongora appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 .

Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Avarado-Gongora contends that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level by 16 points, because the fact that his prior deportation followed an aggravated felony conviction was neither admitted nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. He further contends that Apprendi calls into question the con *486 tinuing validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Alvarado-Gongora’s contentions, however, are foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 , 413-14 (9th Cir.2000), as amended (Feb. 8, 2001).

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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.