                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                               F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  February 18, 2004

                                                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk
                              No. 03-40685
                          Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENITO CONTRERAS-PEREZ,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. L-02-CR-1416-ALL
                       --------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Benito Contreras-Perez (Contreras) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following a prior

deportation.   He asserts that the sentence-enhancing provisions

contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are facially unconstitutional in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).        Contreras

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the

issue for further review.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40685
                                 -2-

       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.
