Raul Machado-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of being found in the United States without permission, following removal. Machado-Martinez argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not provide notice that it was considering an upward variance in his case. Machado-Martinez does not contend that the district court committed any other procedural error in imposing his sentence or that the sentence imposed in his case is substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, or in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file a brief.

As Machado-Martinez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by this court’s holding in United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 722-23 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2954, - L.Ed.2d - (2008). The Supreme Court recently reached the same conclusion. Irizarry v. United States, — U.S. ——, 128 S.Ct. 2198, 2202-04, 171 L.Ed.2d 28 (2008).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.