Margarito MunoznAstello appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues (1) that the district court plainly erred in treating his federal drug conviction as a “drug trafficking crime” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2; (2) that his case should be remanded so the district court can consider the disparity created by early disposition programs; (3) that his sentence violates his equal protection rights; and (4) that the district court plainly erred in ordering that his sentence be served consecutively to an unimposed state sentence. The Government has moved to supplement the record and for summary affirmance, or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief. The Government’s unopposed motion to supplement the record with the factual resume for Munoz-Astello’s prior drug conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is granted.

Munoz-Astello’s first appellate argument is without merit. A comparison of the statute and Guideline at issue shows that a conviction under § 841(a)(1) qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(I). See § 841(a)(1); § 2L1.2, comment, (n. 1(B)(iv)). Moreover, as Munoz-Astello concedes, his last three appellate arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 563 n. 4 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (June 30, 2008) (08-5101); United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), (abrogation on other grounds recognized, United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006)). Munoz-Astello raises his last three arguments solely to preserve them for further review.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motions to supplement the record and for summary affirmance are GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is DENIED as MOOT.