On appeal, Richard Ray Harrimon argues that the district court erred in finding that his prior convictions for evading arrest by vehicle were qualifying violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. However, he correctly concedes that *837 this argument is foreclosed under the law of the case doctrine and that he raises the issue only to preserve it for further review. See United States v. Agofsky, 516 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motions to dismiss the appeal and for an extension of time to file a brief are DENIED.