United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                              F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  August 20, 2003

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                            No. 02-41184                           Clerk
                        Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL ASTORGA-RAMIREZ,
also known as Ramiro Ruiz Ramirez,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. L-02-CR-332-ALL
                       --------------------

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Gabriel Astorga-Ramirez appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) by

entering the United States, without permission, following both

his conviction for an aggravated felony and subsequent

deportation.

     For the first time on appeal, Astorga-Ramirez argues that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior

conviction for a felony or aggravated felony as a sentencing


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41184
                                  -2-

factor and not as an element of the offense.    He asks us to

vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to

reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand

his case for resentencing.

       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.     

Astorga-Ramirez 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).    This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.”    

(internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

       AFFIRMED.