Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Anibar Martinez ALVAREZ, also known as Jose Anibar Alvarez, also known as Jose Anibar Martinez-Alvarez, also known as Jose Martinez Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 543 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 12-20812
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Anibar Martinez ALVAREZ, also known as Jose Anibar Alvarez, also known as Jose Anibar Martinez-Alvarez, also known as Jose Martinez Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Anibar Martinez ALVAREZ, also known as Jose Anibar Alvarez, also known as Jose Anibar Martinez-Alvarez, also known as Jose Martinez Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-20812
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Reynaldo Alejandro Pena, Esq., Pena & Grillo, P.L.L.C., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Anibar Martinez Alvarez appeals a sentence imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised release, arguing that his sentence violates principles of double jeopardy because the revocation of his supervised release was based on the identical conduct that supports a subsequent conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed, but he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. Martinez Alvarez's concession is correct. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700-01, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000); United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368, 371 (5th Cir.2009). Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.