               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 02-50688
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO ALVAREZ-BENITEZ,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                    USDC No. EP-01-CR-2209-ALL
                       --------------------
                         December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Fernando Alvarez-Benitez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.    Alvarez-

Benitez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal

following an aggravated felony conviction.    Alvarez-Benitez

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional because

it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance

of the evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50688
                                 -2-

maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed.

Alvarez-Benitez thus contends that his sentence is invalid and

argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

       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.

Alvarez-Benitez 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).    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.
