
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Filiberto HERNANDEZ-NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-41198.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 21, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, David Hill Peck, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Miguel A. Nogueras, Aurora Ruth Bearse, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Filiberto Hernandez-Navarro 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) are elements of the offense, not sentence enhancements, making those provisions unconstitutional. Hernandez concedes that this argument is foreclosed and he raises it for possible review by the Supreme Court.

This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). We must follow the precedent set 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).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set for in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     