Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodolfo TAFOYA, also known as Rudolfo Tapioa, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-02
Citations: 713 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 17-10522 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodolfo TAFOYA, also known as Rudolfo Tapioa, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 401–402

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodolfo TAFOYA, also known as Rudolfo Tapioa, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10522 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 2, 2018
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, Michael Arthur Leh-mann, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodolfo Tafoya appeals the 21-month within-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). However, he correctly concedes that whether a prior conviction .must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury before a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) can be applied is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, summary af-firmance is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, 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 Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.