CURIAM. Roger Dale Essick, Jr., appeals his forty-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). On appeal, he argues that the district court’s calculation of his criminal history category violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2581, 159 L.Ed.2d 408 (2004), and that the district court erred in treating the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Essick argues that Blakely brings into question the viability of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>). He contends that the district court erred by
holding that sentencing enhancements and sentencing departures are not synonymous and that a waiver for upward departures imposed by the court does not permit the challenging of sentence enhancements recognizing that 8 usc  1326b contains sentencing facts not elements of the offense recognizing that sentencing guidelines may provide enhancements for mere possession of firearm during other offense holding elements of rescission are 1 holding that prior convictions are merely sentencing enhancements rather than elements of the offense