
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Burl Bailey BLAYLOCK, IV, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noah Bradley Lester, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11705 CONSOLIDATED WITH No. 17-10205 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed December 20, 2017
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S, Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Burl Bailey Blaylock, IV, appeals his sentence of 60 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release imposed in connection with his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Blay-lock’s guidelines range was calculated based on an offense level set by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 because he had prior convictions for crimes of violence. Section 2K2.1 uses the definition of crime of violence set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. §.2K2.1, comment. (n.l).

Noah Bradley Lester appeals his concurrent sentences of 240 months and 262 months, followed by three years of supervised release, imposed in connection with his conviction for two counts of bank robbery. Lester was sentenced as a career offender under the provisions of § 4B1.1 and § 4B1.2. Both Blaylock and Lester argue that their prior convictions for the Texas offense of robbery do not qualify as a crime of violence under the definition in § 4B1.2. Blaylock argues that his prior conviction for the Texas offense of assault family violence impeding breath/circulation does not qualify as a crime of violence because it does not have as an element the use of force. Lester argues that his prior conviction for the offense of federal bank robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence because it does not have as an element the use of force.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that the arguments are foreclosed. Blay-lock and Lester correctly concede that their arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 547-63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), United States v. Brewer, 848 F.3d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 2017), and United States v. Howell, 838 F.3d 489, 492 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1108, 197 L.Ed.2d 212 (2017). They raise the issues only to preserve them for further review; thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The judgments are AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief 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.
     