With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that 8 usc  1326b2 is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense
B: recognizing that 8 usc  1326b contains sentencing facts not elements of the offense
C: holding that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 usc  1326b2 and not a separate criminal offense
D: holding that prior convictions are merely sentencing enhancements rather than elements of the offense
B.