United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-51070 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUEL BAEZ TOVAR, also known as Manuel T. Baez,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-03-CR-100-ALL-JN --------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Baez Tovar appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after

deportation/removal in violation of

. Tovar

contends that

(a) and

(b) define

separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

offense under

(b) that should have been alleged in

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 03-51070 -2-

his indictment. Tovar maintains that he pleaded guilty to an

indictment which charged only simple reentry under

(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause.

.

Tovar acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey,

(2000).

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

; United States v. Dabeit,

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit,

(internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). 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 an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.