United States v. Francisco Martinez-Castillo ( 2020 )

Case: 20-50220 Document: 00515674330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 15, 2020
No. 20-50220 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Francisco Martinez-Castillo,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 20-50230
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Francisco Martinez-Castillo, also known as Francisco
Castillo-Martinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 20-50220 Document: 00515674330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2020
No. 20-50220
c/w No. 20-50230
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CR-181-1
USDC No. 4:19-CR-809-1
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Francisco Martinez-Castillo appeals his sentence of sixteen months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence under
§ 1326(b)(2) based on his prior conviction, which increased the statutory
maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release, is unconstitutional
because his prior conviction is treated as a sentencing factor rather than an
element of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Martinez-Castillo concedes that the issue is
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he
seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for
summary affirmance, urging that Martinez-Castillo’s argument is foreclosed.
The parties are correct that Martinez-Castillo’s argument is
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486,
497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 (5th
Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance
is GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969), the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to
file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
2