Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos TREJO-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Carlos Dominguez Trejo, also known as Carlos Hernandez-Herrera, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-15
Citations: 671 F. App'x 324
Docket Number: No. 15-20724 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos TREJO-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Carlos Dominguez Trejo, also known as Carlos Hernandez-Herrera, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos TREJO-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Carlos Dominguez Trejo, also known as Carlos Hernandez-Herrera, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-20724 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 12/15/2016
Paul Eunkuk Kim, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Carlos Trejo-Dominguez raises an argument that is now foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). Trejo also contends that the district court erred by entering judgment reflecting a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), but the judgment actually reflects the appropriate conviction under § 1326(b)(1). Accordingly, the government's unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.