
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Lorenzo REYES-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-40537.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2003.
    Mitchel Neurock, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Richard Bruce Gould, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Juan Lorenzo Reyes-Rodriguez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being an alien found in the United States unlawfully after deportation. He argues for the first time on appeal that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it does not require the prior aggravated felony conviction used to increase his sentence to be alleged in the indictment and proven as an element of the offense. He argues that because the indictment did not allege his prior aggravated felony conviction, his sentence to more than two years of imprisonment and one year of supervised release is illegal.

Reyes-Rodriguez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issues for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). Reyes-Rodriguez’s arguments are foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     