               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 02-20605
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GONZALO MONDRAGON,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

               * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GONZALO MONDRAGON-PENALOZA,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.


                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. H-98-CR-315-ALL
                     USDC No. H-02-CR-20-ALL
                       --------------------
                         February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20605
                                 -2-

       Gonzalo Mondragon-Penaloza appeals the sentences imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

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

Barahona argues that the “felony” enhancement provision of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional.

       Madragon acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), 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.
