                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  April 21, 2004

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 03-11121
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IGNACIO LARA-LUCIANO,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                  USDC No. 5:03-CR-052-C-1-ALL
                      --------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

    Ignacio Lara-Luciano appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.        He

argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.        Lara-

Luciano maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which

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

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-11121
                                 -2-

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.

Lara-Luciano 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.
