Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo GUTIERREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-16
Citations: 490 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 12-10286
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo GUTIERREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 490
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo GUTIERREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10286
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 16, 2012.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, James Nicholas Bunch, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kevin Joel Page, Laura S. Harper, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Arturo Gutierrez-Rodriguez raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 874, 377-78 (5th Cir.2008), which held that the Government may decline to move for an additional one-point reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3El.l(b) based on the defendant's refusal to waive his right to appeal. Gutierrez-Rodriguez 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, 246 (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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.