United States v. Beltran-Castillo ( 2022 )

Case: 22-50394 Document: 00516551817 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50394
FILED
November 21, 2022
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Samuel Beltran-Castillo,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-1063-1
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Samuel Beltran-Castillo appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal
reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). For the
first time on appeal, Beltran-Castillo contends that the recidivism
enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-50394 Document: 00516551817 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2022
No. 22-50394
above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a),
based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt. While Beltran-Castillo acknowledges this
argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224(1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court
review. In addition, Beltran-Castillo has filed an unopposed motion for
summary disposition.
This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v.
Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Beltran-Castillo is correct
that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Beltran-Castillo’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.
2