United States v. Marseille, 377 F.3d at 1257. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (emphasis added), the Supreme Court declined to revisit Almendarez-Torres and held that “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Marseille, we refused to interpret the Supreme Court’s rationale in Apprendi as overruling the prior Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres. 377 F.3d at 1257. We further concluded that Blakely “does not take such fact-finding out of the hands of the courts.” Id. at 1257-58 n. 14; see also United States v. Guadamuz-Solis, 232 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In Booker, the Supreme Court concluded that
holding that almendareztorres remains the law after apprendi holding that almendareztorres remains good law unless and until the supreme court chooses to overturn it holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi recognizing the prior conviction exception of almendareztorres holding that apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of almendareztorres