
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo CONTRERAS-MONTOYA, also known as Gerardo Montoya-Contreras, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo Contreras-Montoya, also known as Arturo Lopez-Mansanero, also known as Juan Ibarra-Olvera, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-41341.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2003.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Rudy Xavier Rodriguez, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Gerardo Contreras-Montoya (Contreras) appeals his 2002 guilty-plea conviction for being found present in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and the revocation of supervised release from his 2001 guilty-plea conviction for illegally entering the United States. Contreras’ guilty-plea to the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) charge was taken by the magistrate judge and approved by the district court after Contreras gave his written consent. Contreras argues that his guilty plea and conviction are void because a Fed. R.Crim. P. 11 colloquy may never be delegated to a non-Article III magistrate judge. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent but raises it to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.

We held in United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 266-69 (5th Cir.1997), that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) provides a magistrate judge with the statutory authority to conduct a Fed. R.Crim. P. 11 guilty plea proceeding and that this delegation of authority does not violate the Constitution. Therefore, Contreras’ argument is foreclosed, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

The Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance and to waive the briefing requirement is GRANTED. The Government’s request to extend the briefing period is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     