United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                                                      F I L E D
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                          July 9, 2004

                                                                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                          Clerk
                                No. 03-41696
                              Summary Calendar




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ANIBAL GALVEZ,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.




                        --------------------
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Southern District of Texas
                          No. B-03-CR-475-1
                        --------------------




Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      Jorge Galvez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence

for illegal reentry following deportation.            He first argues that

the district court erred in finding that his prior state misde-

meanor conviction for sexual abuse of a person under fourteen qual-


      *
        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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
                           No. 03-41696
                                -2-

ified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) and

erred in increasing his offense level by eight pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).

     We have reviewed the record and briefs and conclude that the

district court did not err in applying the eight-level increase,

because Galvez’s state sexual abuse conviction qualified as an ag-

gravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(A).      See United States v.

Urias-Escobar, 

, 166-68 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(2002).

     Galvez argues next that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions found at 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional

sentencing provisions.   He acknowledges that his argument is fore-

closed, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme

Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

(2000).   As Galvez concedes, this issue is foreclosed.   See Almen-

darez-Torres v. United States, 

, 247 (1998); United

States v. Dabeit, 

, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

     AFFIRMED.