               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 02-50521
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAMIRO PARRA-OLIVAS,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                    USDC No. DR-01-CR-621-1-FB
                       --------------------
                         December 12, 2002


Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Ramiro Parra-Olivas 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.     He contends

that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year

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

Parra-Olivas complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

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

following an aggravated felony conviction.    He argues that the


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50521
                                  -2-

sentencing provision is unconstitutional.    Alternatively, Parra-

Olivas 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 was an element

of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been

alleged in his indictment.

       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.

Parra-Olivas acknowledges that his arguments are 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 arguments 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.
