Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0235-01.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. Jose CONEJO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11408 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 6, 2017
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Lara Wynn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Conejo-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction and, therefore, he should have been sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He contends that the district court exceeded the statutory maximum penalty by imposing a three-year term of supervised release under § 1326(b)(1) and, thus, violated his due process rights.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, because Conejo-Rodriguez’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). As Conejo-Rodriguez concedes that his argument is foreclosed and is raised only to preserve it for further review, a summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R 47.5.4.