IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50595 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO ROCHA-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50631 _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CATALINO GARCIA-ARREDONDO, also known as Samuel Perez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant; ____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50663 _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EUTIQUIO GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, also known as Luis Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant; No. 00-50595 c/w Nos. 00-50631 & 00-50663 & 00-50701 & 00-50769 - 2 - ____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50701 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARTIN MORALES-HERNANDEZ, also known as Martin H. Morales, Defendant-Appellant; ____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50769 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADRIAN DEMERIO LABRADO-ALVAREZ, also known as Adrian Labrado, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas - - - - - - - - - - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Alejandro Rocha-Mendoza, Catalino Garcia-Arredondo, Eutiquio Gonzalez-Gonzalez**, Martin Morales-Hernandez, Adrian Demerio Labrado-Alvarez (collectively the Defendants) appeal their * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. ** Gonzalez’s real name is David Chavez-Prado.

No. 00-50595 c/w Nos. 00-50631 & 00-50663 & 00-50701 & 00-50769 - 3 - sentences following their guilty plea convictions for illegal re- entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Defendants argue that their sentences should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The Defendants acknowledge that their argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but they seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000).

The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.