With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". disputes the defendant’s contention that he was not appointed counsel.” This statement alone, however, is not enough. Finally, Bernal-Portillo claims that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, (2000), has overruled the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), holding that prior convictions need not be proven as an element of the offense. If he were right, Bernal-Portillo would have been eligible for no more than a two-year sentence. However, he is not right; this Circuit has squarely rejected this exact argument. United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414-15 (9th Cir.2000), as amended at 2001 U.S.App. LEXIS 1816, cert. denied, 532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Although we are in complete agreement with

A: holding that almendareztorres remains good law after apprendi
B: holding that almendareztorres remains good law unless and until the supreme court chooses to overturn it
C: holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi
D: holding that apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of almendareztorres
A.