eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-01

United States v. Ordonez-Mendoza ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-50375    Document: 00516608077       Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50375
Summary Calendar                          FILED
____________                       January 12, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                            Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Manuel Camilo Ordonez-Mendoza,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-50399
Summary Calendar
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Manuel Ordonez-Mendoza,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-1045-1
USDC No. 4:22-CR-2-1
______________________________
Case: 22-50375         Document: 00516608077             Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/12/2023
No. 22-50375
c/w No. 22-50399
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Manuel Ordonez-Mendoza appeals his sentence for illegal reentry in
violation of
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a) and (b)(2) and appeals the revocation of the
term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. Regard-
ing the former, Ordonez-Mendoza contends that the enhancement of his sen-
tence per § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because the fact of a prior conviction
was not charged and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Ordonez-
Mendoza does not address the revocation or the revocation sentence, he has
abandoned any challenge to them. See Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224–
25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Ordonez-Mendoza has filed an unopposed motion for summary dis-
position and a letter brief explaining that he raises this issue only to preserve
it for further review, correctly conceding it to be foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States,
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998). See United States v. Pervis,
    937 F.3d 546
    , 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019).
Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
Inc. v. Davis,
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Ordonez-Mendoza’s
motion is GRANTED, and the judgments are AFFIRMED.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2