Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose CONEJO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-06
Citations: 690 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 16-11408 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose CONEJO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R 47.5.4.