               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 02-50141
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELMER ANTONIO CASTRO-CARDONA,
also known as Angel Bravo-Dominguez,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                     USDC No. DR-01-CR-328-1
                       --------------------
                         October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Elmer Antonio Castro-Cardona appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Castro-Cardona contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses.   He argues that the

aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

that should have been alleged in his indictment.   Castro-Cardona


     *
        Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
                           No. 02-50141
                                -2-

maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged

only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).   He argues that his

sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which

may be imposed for that offense.

     In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses.   The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause.    Id. at 239-47.

Castro-Cardona acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

     Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres.    See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001).    This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.”   Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).    The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

     The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief.   In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required.   The motion is GRANTED.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
