
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher LESSNER, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-10245 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed October 25, 2017
    
      James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Michael Arthur Lehmann, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lessner pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Lessner to 63 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Lessner argues that the district court plainly erred under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by imposing a sentence based on factual findings that were not supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed under current circuit law, but he raises the claim solely to preserve it for further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits. 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 Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Because Lessner’s arguments are indeed foreclosed by United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013), the Government’s motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,
     