the indictment did not allege the temporal relationship between the prior removal and prior conviction, and he did not admit, and a jury did not find, the temporal relationship. We agree. See United States v. Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d 748, 751-55 (9th Cir.2007). However, the error was harmless because the record shows that Placencia-Medina was removed subsequent to his prior conviction. See Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d at 913-14. Placencia-Medina also contends that the temporal relationship is an element of a 8 U.S.C. § 1326 offense and that the indictment therefore failed to allege an element of the offense. He is incorrect. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d at 752-755
holding that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 usc  1326b2 and not a separate criminal offense recognizing that 8 usc  1326b contains sentencing facts not elements of the offense holding that 8 usc  1326b2 is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense holding that prior convictions are merely sentencing enhancements rather than elements of the offense holding that  1326b is a penalty provision and does not constitute a separate crime