IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50848 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO ORTIZ-GARCIA, also known as Alejandro Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-457-ALL-DB -------------------- February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alejandro Ortiz-Garcia appeals the 41-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after deportation in violation

of

. He contends that the sentence is invalid

because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

prescribed in

(a).

Ortiz-Garcia complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to

(b)(2) based on his prior

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-50848 -2-

deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. He argues

that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause.

Alternatively, Ortiz-Garcia contends that

(a) and

(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that

the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence was an element of the offense under

(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment.

Ortiz-Garcia acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States,

(1998), but seeks to preserve the issues for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey,

(2000).

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

; United States v. Dabeit,

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

(2001). Ortiz-

Garcia’s arguments are foreclosed. 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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.