Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Francisco GARCIA-PUGA, also known as Ernesto Salas-Ibarra, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-20
Citations: 697 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 16-11676 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Francisco GARCIA-PUGA, also known as Ernesto Salas-Ibarra, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Francisco GARCIA-PUGA, also known as Ernesto Salas-Ibarra, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11676 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed September 20, 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Laura S. Harper, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Francisco Garcia-Puga pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to 45 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction, and therefore, it was a violation of his due process rights for the district court to impose a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He contends that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence under § 1326(a).
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance because Garcia-Puga'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 Garcia-Puga 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 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.