Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Encarnacion LUJANO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 87 F. App'x 398
Docket Number: No. 02-41688
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Encarnacion LUJANO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Encarnacion LUJANO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-41688.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Tito H. Alfaro, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Encarnación Lujano-Perez appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following entry of his guilty plea to a charge of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lujano-Perez argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional.
Lujano-Perez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he asserts that Almendarez-Torres has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.
Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres "unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it." Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.