
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul MACHADO-MARTINEZ, also known as Raul Machado, also known as Simon Hernandez Sanchez, also known as Francisco Javier Lima-Valdez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-41105
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Raul Machado-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of being found in the United States without permission, following removal. Machado-Martinez argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not provide notice that it was considering an upward variance in his case. Machado-Martinez does not contend that the district court committed any other procedural error in imposing his sentence or that the sentence imposed in his case is substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, or in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file a brief.

As Machado-Martinez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by this court’s holding in United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 722-23 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2954, - L.Ed.2d - (2008). The Supreme Court recently reached the same conclusion. Irizarry v. United States, — U.S. ——, 128 S.Ct. 2198, 2202-04, 171 L.Ed.2d 28 (2008).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     