Amendment by increasing his term of imprisonment based on his prior conviction, which was never admitted by him during his plea colloquy, nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. He also contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is no longer good law in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2004). These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.2006) (rejecting after Shepard the specific contention that a section 1326(b) enhancement cannot be applied where the defendant did not admit the prior conviction during a guilty plea); United States v. Wetland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1080 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court holding that almendareztorres remains good law unless and until the supreme court chooses to overturn it holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi holding that we must follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the supreme court quotation marks omitted