
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melvin JACKSON, also known as Melvo Jackson, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-30387 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 9, 2017
    Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Maurice Edwin Landrieu, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney,' U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Celia Clary Rhoads, Esq., Claude John Kelly, III, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans,- LA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Melvin Jackson was convicted of conspiracy, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession with the intent to distribute heroin. United States v. Jackson, 662 Fed.Appx. 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2016). On appeal, Jackson raised several issues, including a constitutional challenge to his sentence that was foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). See Jackson 662 Fed.Appx. at 312, 319. We affirmed Jackson’s conviction but vacated and remanded the sentence for further consideration of the application of a sentencing enhancement based on the severity of the injury to the victim. Id. at 318-20. On remand, the district court found that the sentencing enhancement was appropriate." Jackson does not challenge this finding.

On appeal, Jackson states that in his initial appeal he raised the issue that his sentence was unconstitutional because it was based on uncharged conduct. Jackson concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Hernandez, but he raises the issue again to preserve it for possible further review. Accordingly, Jackson’s unopposed motion for summary ' disposition is GRANTED, his alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     