
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Raul CORDERO-LUCIO, also known as Joe Raul Cordero, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-11090.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 21, 2004.
    Jeffrey Robert Haag, US Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Jackson Herrington, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jose Raul Cordero-Lucio appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). CorderoLucio argues that under the reasoning of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), a fact must be alleged in the indictment before it may be used to increase the maximum guideline sentence. Cordero-Lucio acknowledges that his contention is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Randle, 304 F.3d 373 (5th Cir.2002).

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Cordero-Lucio acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including Apprendi v. New Jersey, 580 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 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). 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.

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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     