Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Joanna Espinoza Reyna raises an argument that is 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. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a bi'ief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.