Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin ARAMBUL-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 713 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 17-10964 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin ARAMBUL-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, JONES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 352–352

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin ARAMBUL-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10964 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed February 23, 2018
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Lara Wynn, Federal Pub-lie Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before JOLLY, JONES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Martin Arambul-Duran appeals his conviction and 30-month sentence for illegal reentry after removal from the United States. He argues that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum because the enhanced penalty provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He also asserts that his guilty plea was invalid because he was not admonished that his pri- or felony conviction could not be used to enhance his sentence under § 1326(b) unless it was submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, Arambul-Duran has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief conceding that these issues are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and explaining that he has raised the issues only to preserve them for possible further review. Accordingly, because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Arambul-Duran's motion is GRANTED. The district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.