
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan BIRULA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 04-40271, 04-40279.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 21, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timoteo E. Gomez, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Birula-Hernandez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found illegally present in the United States after deportation. He argues, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are elements of the offense, not sentence enhancements, making those provisions unconstitutional. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and he raises it for possible review by the Supreme Court.

This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219. We must follow the precedent set forth in Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000)(internal quotation and citation omitted).

Birula does not brief any argument concerning how or why any potential reduction in his sentence for the 8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction would have any bearing on the sentence the district court imposed upon revocation of his supervised release for his prior illegal-reentry conviction. He has therefore abandoned his appeal from the revocation of his supervised release. United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir.1991).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     