United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 00-3580
                                    ___________

United States of America,              *
                                       *
             Appellee,                 *
                                       *
       v.                              * Appeal from the United States
                                       * District Court for the
Cesar Abundis-Quesadas, also known * District Court of Nebraska.
as Isidro Martinez-Luna, also known as *
Isidro L. Martinez, also known as      *     [UNPUBLISHED]
Isidro Luna Martinez, also known as    *
Cesar Abundis, also known as Cesar     *
Abundis-Quesea, also known as Cesar *
Abondis, also known as Cesar Quezea, *
also known as Cesar Abundis-Casada, *
also known as Cesar Abundis-Quesada, *
                                       *
             Appellant.                *
                                  ___________

                            Submitted: February 6, 2001
                                Filed: March 6, 2001
                                    ___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
                          ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Cesar Abundis-Quesadas pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the United States
after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His sentence was enhanced under
section 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he had previously been
deported after being convicted of an aggravated felony. The district court1 sentenced
him to 77 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release.

        Abundis-Quesadas argues on appeal, as he did below, that the fact of his prior
aggravated-felony conviction had to be charged in the indictment and proven beyond
a reasonable doubt because Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

(1998),
is no longer good law in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

(2000). We
reject this argument because the Apprendi Court declined to overrule Almendarez-
Torres, 

and we have previously declined to read Apprendi as disturbing the
holding of Almendarez-Torres, see United States v. Rush, Nos. 00-2557/2765, 

, at *2 (8th Cir. Jan. 19, 2001) (per curiam) (Apprendi does not apply to fact
of prior conviction); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 

, 932 n.4 (8th Cir.)
(“In Apprendi, the Court left Almendarez-Torres untouched, although [it] expressed a
willingness to reconsider it.”), cert. denied, 

(2000).

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




      1
      The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
                                          -2-