Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis HERNANDEZ-ESTALA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 101 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 03-41395
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis HERNANDEZ-ESTALA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 458–458

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis HERNANDEZ-ESTALA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41395.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 23, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Luis Hernandez-Estala pleaded guilty and was convicted of illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and 6 U.S.C. § 202, 557. On appeal, Hernandez-Estala asserts that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Hernandez-Estala concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he nevertheless seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). We must follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it. See Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984.
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.