Jose Anibar Martinez Alvarez appeals a sentence imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised release, arguing that his sentence violates principles of double jeopardy because the revocation of his supervised release was based on the identical conduct that supports a subsequent conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed, but he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. Martinez Alvarez’s concession is correct. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700-01, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000); United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368, 371 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.