United States v. Reyes-Cardona ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-50460     Document: 00515683046         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/22/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 20-50460                      December 22, 2020
    Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Hector Reyes-Cardona,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 2:19-CR-2829-1
    Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Hector Reyes-Cardona appeals his sentence of 21 months of
    imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court
    imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues
    that the recidivism enhancement under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b) is
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50460     Document: 00515683046          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/22/2020
    No. 20-50460
    unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable
    statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment
    nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He 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, asserting that Reyes-Cardona’s argument is foreclosed.
    The parties are correct that Reyes-Cardona’s assertion is foreclosed
    by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 
    759 F.3d 486
    , 497 (5th
    Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 
    492 F.3d 624
    , 625-26 (5th Cir.
    2007). 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 as moot, and the judgment of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-50460

Filed Date: 12/22/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/23/2020