Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Loreto RAMOS-PABLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-03
Citations: 694 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 16-11706 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Loreto RAMOS-PABLO, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Loreto RAMOS-PABLO, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11706 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 3, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura S. Harper, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Loreto Ramos-Pablo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal from the United States and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. Ramos-Pablo argues on appeal that his indictment failed to invoke the sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C.. § 1326(b)(2), as his indictment failed to allege the existence of a prior conviction. He contends that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for a conviction under § 1326(a) and violates his due process rights.
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that Ramos-Pablo'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 Ramos-Pablo concedes that his argument is foreclosed and is raised only to preserve it for further review, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.