S.Ct. at 2160 n. 1 (“In Almendarez-Torres we recognized a narrow exception to this general rule for the fact of a prior conviction. Because the parties do not contest that decision’s vitality, we do not revisit it for purposes of our decision today.” (citation omitted)); Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (“Even though it is arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided, and that a logical application of our reasoning today should apply if the recidivist issue were contested, Apprendi does not contest the decision’s validity and we need not revisit it for purposes of our decision today to treat the case as a narrow exception to the general rule we recalled at the outset.”). We have also held as much. See United States v. Rodríguez, 759 F.3d 113, 122 (1st Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has clearly
holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 remains good law and rejecting the contention that prior convictions must be admitted by the defendant or found by the jury holding that almendareztorres remains good law unless and until the supreme court chooses to overturn it holding that almendareztorres remains good law after apprendi holding that almendareztorres remains the law after apprendi holding that almendareztorres remains good law quoting united states v carrigan 724 f3d 39 51 n 4 1st cir2013