Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcial CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-05
Citations: 435 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 11-10133
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcial CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcial CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10133
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 2011.
Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marcial Castro pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful reentry and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. He now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by ordering that his federal sentence run consecutively to any sentence that might be imposed in a pending state criminal case. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on a waiver contained in Castro's post-plea sentencing agreement, or for summary affirmance on the basis of binding circuit precedent. Alternatively, the Government seeks an extension of time to file a brief. Castro argues that the waiver does not bar the appeal.
We need not reach the disputed waiver issue because, as Castro concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), in which we held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. Despite Castro's arguments that Brown was incorrectly decided, Brown remains the law of this circuit, as we held in United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128, 131-32 (5th Cir.2010), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2988, 180 L.Ed. 821, 2011 WL 2297806 (2011). Although the Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in Setser, this court is bound to follow precedent even when certiorari has been granted. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808 n. 1 (5th Cir.2008).
The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's motions to dismiss and, alternatively, for an extension of time are 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.