               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 01-10897
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO OCAMPO-CASTANEDA,
also known as Roberto Garcia,
also known as Emilio Calderon,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 3:01-CR-48-1-P
                      --------------------
                          June 19, 2002

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

PER CURIAM:*

     Roberto Ocampo-Castaneda 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.

Ocampo-Castaneda 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.   Ocampo-

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10897
                                -2-

Castaneda maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which

charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 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.

Ocampo-Castaneda 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.
