Case ID: f-appx_331/html/0308-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio MARQUEZ-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-11094
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 18, 2009.
    Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Shawn Lee Smith, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Christopher Allen Curtis, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sergio Marquez-Mendoza (Marquez) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his case should be remanded so the district court can consider the disparity created by early disposition programs. He also contends that the selective implementation of “fast-track” programs violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal, for summary affirmance, or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief.

As Marquez concedes, his appellate arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 563 n. 4 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 624, 172 L.Ed.2d 617 (2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 129 S.Ct. 624, 172 L.Ed.2d 616 (2008). He raises these arguments solely to preserve them for further review.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief are DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 m Cm R. 47.5.4.