
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben TOVAR BALLEZA, also known as Rosando Tobar Balleza, also known as Rosendo Tovar-Ballesa, also known as Rosendo Balleza Tovar, also known as Rosendo Tovar Balleza, also known as Rosendo Tovar-Balleza, also known as Rosando T. Balleza, also known as Rosendo Tovar, also known as Ruben Tovar-Balleza, also known as Rosendo Billesma Tovar, also known as Tosando Tobar Balleza, also known as Pedro Lezama, also known as Rosendo Towar, also known as Ruben Balleza, also known as Rosando Tobar, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-20214
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 20, 2015.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ruben Tovar Balleza pleaded guilty to a single count of being unlawfully present in the United States after removal following a felony conviction. He was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the rationale of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), applies to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution and, thus, his rights under the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause were violated when the district court relied on a jail disciplinary report to deny him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

However, Tovar Balleza moves for summary disposition of his appeal because he concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102,108 (5th Cir.2006), and United States v. Salas, 182 Fed.Appx. 282, 284 & n. 7 (5th Cir.2006). He asserts that he raises these issues to preserve them for possible further review. As Tovar Balleza concedes, his arguments are foreclosed; therefore, his motion for summary disposition is GRANTED.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, die court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     