are violated by allowing judicial finding of a prior conviction for purposes of increasing the statutory maximum sentence. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting contention that the government is required to plead prior convictions in the indictment and prove them to a jury unless the defendant admits the prior convictions); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that we continue to be bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Almendarez-Torres that a district judge may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt); United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d
holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea recognizing the prior conviction exception of almendareztorres recognizing as foreclosed the contention that recent supreme court decisions limit almendareztorres holding to cases where a defendant has admitted the prior convictions during a guilty plea 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 the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions