Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jesus Salas, Jr., presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Shabazz, 633 F.3d 342, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2011), which held that the phrase “on any such revocation” in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) does not impose an aggregate limit on imprisonment for revocation of supervised release but limits only the amount of imprisonment that may be imposed each time a court revokes a defendant’s supervised release. He raises the arguments solely to preserve them for further review. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motions to dismiss and for an extension of time to file a brief are DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.