PER CURIAM:1

Rodolfo Vela-Ibarra (Vela) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that the district court erred in considering the presentence report from his previous alien smuggling offense to determine that a 16-level increase in his offense level was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii); that the special cost-payment condition of may enter into the determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment. (backg’d.). Although Vela cites to our decisions in United States v. Zavala- Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 982 (2000), and United States v. Martinez-Cortez, 988 F.2d 1408 (5th Cir. 1993), as support for his argument, those cases involved the interpretation of statutes not at issue here. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d at 604-08 (interpreting “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A)); Martinez-Cortez, 988 F.2d at 1410-14 (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)). We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not misapply U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii).

As Vela concedes, this court’s recent decision in United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, ____ (5th Cir. 2002), 2002 WL 977273, forecloses his arguments regarding the special cost-payment condition of his supervised release.

Vela lastly contends, for the first time on appeal, that the sentence-enhancing provisions contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Vela acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review.

Based on the foregoing, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.