aliens. Barrera-Flores contends that because he pleaded guilty to being “deported,” the maximum penalty is two years under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1). This contention fails. See United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez, 183 F.3d 933, 935 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that “any distinction between deportation and removal is legally insignificant for purposes of § 1326”). In addition, Barrera-Flores contends that congressional changes to § 1326(b)(2) created a separate crime for which “removal” must be pleaded and proved beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention also fails. See United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 413-14 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that prohibitions of  2404b and burks apply equally to evidence that stigmatizes the defendant though it does not establish a separate crime if the other acts evidence is unrelated to the crime at issue holding that an undercover agent is not an accomplice as long as the agent does not bring about the crime but merely obtains evidence to be used against those engaged in crime holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins holding that  1326b2 as amended does not define a separate crime from  1326a holding that  3582c2 does not authorize sentence below minimum of amended guidelines range