Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Diego Alberto CASTILLEJA-LIMON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-06
Citations: 700 F. App'x 366
Docket Number: No. 17-10324 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Diego Alberto CASTILLEJA-LIMON, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 366–366

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Diego Alberto CASTILLEJA-LIMON, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10324 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed November 6, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Diego Alberto Castilleja-Limon appeals his sentence of 16 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for illegal reentry after deportation. He argues that the district court erroneously determined that his sentence was subject to an enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He asserts that his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction, and that therefore, the enhancement violated his due process rights because his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), forecloses Castilleja-Limon's argument. Castilleja-Limon concedes that his argument is foreclosed and explains that he raises it only to preserve it for further review; thus, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm, R. 47.5.4.