of correctness to a sentence within the properly-calculated Guidelines range. Rita, 551 U.S. at 346-47, 127 S.Ct. 2456. Here, the district court correctly calculated Rios-Santos’ Guidelines range and, after hearing his arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 28 months. We find that the district court’s explanation was sufficient to show that the court conducted the sort of individualized sentencing analysis required under Gall and Carter. Rios-Santos also argues that the fact of his prior conviction should have been presented to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes, however, that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228-35, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Rios-Santos’ sentence.
holding that where a statute provides for an enhanced penalty based on a defendants prior conviction the fact of conviction is a sentencing factor to be determined by the court rather than a jury holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime holding statute permitting increased sentence based on prior conviction is penalty provision not element of offense holding that a conviction and sentence for a predicate offense that is entered after the commission of the current offense does not qualify as a prior felony within the meaning of the sexual predator statute holding that forfeiture is an element of the sentence imposed following conviction