IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 02-50401
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS MIGUEL COLAN-ESPINOZA,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                   USDC No. EP-01-CR-2148-ALL-DB
                        --------------------
                           August 22, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Luis Miguel Colan-Espinoza appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally

reenter the United States after removal 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).   Colan-Espinoza complains that his sentence

was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based

on his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction.

He argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50401
                                -2-

Clause.   Alternatively, Colan-Espinoza 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, 

, 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.    

Colan-Espinoza acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

, 490 (2000).

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review.

     Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres.    See 

; United States v. Dabeit, 

, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 

(2001).     This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.”    

(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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required.    The motion is GRANTED.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.