his sentence under the Act because his previous convictions were not submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if we set aside Wingfield’s agreement not to appeal his sentence, this claim has no merit and misstates the law. In Almendarez-Torres v. United States the Supreme Court determined that the fact of prior convictions need not be alleged in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to form the basis for a sentence enhancement. 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Despite Appellant’s best attempts to muddy the waters, in Apprendi the Supreme Court specifically declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres, and the case remains good law. See 530 U.S. at 489-490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. See also United States v. Ordaz, 398 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed
holding that any fact other than that of a prior conviction that increases criminal penalties above the statutory maximum must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and found by a jury holding that other than the fact of a prior conviction any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt and explicitly stating that the courts holding did not affect the validity of almendareztorres recognizing the prior conviction exception of almendareztorres holding that almendareztorres rejected the argument that the fact of a prior conviction must be found by a jury holding any fact other than prior conviction that increases statutory mandatory minimum is element of offense that must be submitted to jury and found beyond reasonable doubt