     Case: 19-50849      Document: 00515386000         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/17/2020




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit


                                    No. 19-50849                               FILED
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                           April 17, 2020
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IGNACIO MARTINEZ-VENTURA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:19-CR-304-1


Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       Ignacio Martinez-Ventura appeals the 21-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He
argues that his sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional statute,
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but raises the issue
to preserve for further possible review. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 19-50849     Document: 00515386000      Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/17/2020


                                  No. 19-50849

486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-
26 (5th Cir. 2007).
      The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance
and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue
is foreclosed, 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 Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to
file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.




                                        2
