Francisco Gutierrez-Lopez challenges the 35-month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, "the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case." Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Gutierrez first raises an argument that is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228, 235 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). In Gonzalez-Longoria, we held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which defines a crime of violence when incorporated by reference into U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2014), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d at 672.
Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Groendyke Transport, Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. The Government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.