IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50637 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

OSCAR MATA-HUERTA, also known as Oscar Mata,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with No. 00-50704 _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

BERNARDO GARZON-SERNA, Defendant- Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with No. 00-50771 _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

AMADOR GARAVITO-REYES, also known as Amador Garavito, Defendant-Appellant; No. 00-50637 c/w Nos. 00-50704 & 00-50771 & 00-50774 - 2 -

____________________

Consolidated with No. 00-50774 _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

BERNARDO EDUARDO CASTANEDA-QUINTANA, also known as Eduardo Quintana, 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:*

Oscar Mata-Huerta, Bernardo Garzon-Serna, Amador Garavito-

Reyes, Bernardo Eduardo Castaneda-Quintana (collectively the

Defendants) appeal their sentences following their guilty plea

convictions for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation

of

. The Defendants argue that their sentences

should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under

(a). The Defendants acknowledge that their argument

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

(1998), but they seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 00-50637 c/w Nos. 00-50704 & 00-50771 & 00-50774 - 3 -

The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres,

.

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.