PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Gerardo Madrid appeals the 30-month above-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Madrid concedes that the issue whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must be *2 Case: 17-50404 Document: 00514297934 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2018

No. 17-50404

alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

In Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 239-47, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have not overruled Almendarez-Torres . See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Madrid’s argument is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.