IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 01-40945
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODOLFO CARRANZA-VELASQUEZ,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. B-01-CR-161-1
                      --------------------
                        December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Rodolfo Carranza-Velasquez appeals his sentence following

his guilty-plea conviction for being present in the United States

after having previously been deported or removed following an

aggravated-felony conviction.   Carranza-Velasquez argues for the

first time on appeal that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is

unconstitutional because it permitted the sentencing judge to

find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40945
                                -2-

which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he

otherwise would have been exposed.   He thus contends that his

sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-

year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a).

     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.   

Carranza-Velasquez acknowledges that his argument is 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 argument 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.