Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel ARPON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-21
Citations: 429 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 10-11213
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel ARPON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 426–426

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel ARPON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-11213
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 21, 2011.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Joel Arpón presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), in which we held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to an unimposed state sentence. Arpón further concedes that his remaining arguments are foreclosed as this court has repeatedly held that a sentencing judge may find by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts necessary to the determination of a sentencing guidelines range. See, e.g., United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 891 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245-46 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir.2006). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.