                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 01-10325
                         Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN RAMOS,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Northern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 3:00-CR-281-1-L
                        --------------------
                           April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Ruben Ramos 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.    Ramos 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.    Ramos maintains that he pleaded guilty to an

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10325
                                 -2-

§ 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.

Ramos 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.

     In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in

the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s

judgment.    The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.   The

motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED.    The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY
     AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
