United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
                                                              April 23, 2003
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                 Clerk


                              No. 02-50535
                          Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIPE NAJERA-ARELLANO,


                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                     USDC No. P-02-CR-10-ALL
                       --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Felipe Najera-Arellano 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.       Najera

argues that the “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. §

1326(b)(2) are unconstitutional.

     Najera acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

, 235 (1998), but

asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50535
                                 -2-

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

       AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.