PER CURIAM
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-1076-1
Before JOLLY, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM[*]
Luis Miguel Huerta-Pedraza appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the applicable maximum in § 1326(a), based on facts neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As Huerta Pedraza acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Accordingly, Huerta-Pedraza has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition.
We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). As Huerta-Pedraza concedes that his argument is foreclosed, summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Huerta-Pedraza's motion is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
[*] This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.