United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  June 25, 2003

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 02-51280
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE MOCTEZUMA RODRIGUEZ-VILLASENOR,
also known as Edgar Rodriguez, also known
as Rene Edson, also known as Edson Rodriguez,
also known as Rene Rodriguez,
                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                    USDC No. SA-01-CR-591-ALL
                       --------------------

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

    Rene Moctezuma Rodriguez-Villasenor appeals the sentence

imposed following his conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Rodriguez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses.   He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-51280
                                  -2-

alleged in his indictment.    Rodriguez 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 and one-year maximum term

of supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.

       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.     

Rodriguez 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).    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.