
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro MORALES-VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-20332
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 24, 2003.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, John Richard Berry, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Morales-Vega (“Morales”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry following deportation. Morales contends 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), claiming a majority of the Supreme Court feels Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), was incorrectly decided. Morales acknowledges that this contention is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but raises it to preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

Morales seeks remand pursuant to Fed. R.Crim. P. 36 for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. The Government concedes that remand is appropriate because the written judgment does not reflect that, at sentencing, the district court orally granted its motion to remit the $100 special assessment. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED for the sole purpose of allowing the district court to correct the judgment to reflect that the $100 special assessment is abated.

AFFIRMED, REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     