Case: 20-50716 Document: 00515754186 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-50716 February 23, 2021 consolidated with Lyle W. Cayce No. 20-50719 Clerk Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Gaspar Bernal-Bernal, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-61-1 USDC No. 4:20-CR-16-1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Gaspar Bernal-Bernal appeals the 14-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 20-50716 Document: 00515754186 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2021

No. 20-50716 c/w No. 20-50719 removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals the concomitant revocation of his probation term related to his prior conviction for illegal reentry.

Raising one issue on appeal, Bernal-Bernal argues that his new illegal reentry sentence, imposed under § 1326(b)(1), violates his due process rights by exceeding the two-year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a) because the indictment did not allege a prior conviction necessary for the § 1326(b)(1) enhancement. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), and he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

As the Government argues, and Bernal-Bernal concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda- Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Although the appeals of Bernal-Bernal’s illegal reentry conviction and probation revocation were consolidated, he does not address the revocation in his appellate brief. Consequently, he has abandoned any challenge he could have raised to the revocation or revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.