eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-09

United States v. Teodoro Reynosa-Denova ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 20-50131    Document: 00515559641         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/10/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-50131                        September 10, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
TEODORO REYNOSA-DENOVA, also known as Tedoro Denova-Reynosa, also
known as Tedoro Denova, also known as Francis Maeth, also known as
Eduardo Nova, also known as Leonardo Denova-Reynosa, also known as Juan
Jaimes-Denova, also known as Tedora Reynosa,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CR-219-1
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Teodoro Reynosa-Denova appeals the 24-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal. Reynosa-
Denova maintains that the statute he was sentenced under,
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b)(1), is unconstitutional because it provides that a defendant may be
*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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 20-50131     Document: 00515559641       Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 20-50131
subject to an enhanced sentence even if the fact of his prior conviction is not
set forth in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Reynosa-
Denova properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States,
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998), but he raises the issue to preserve
it for possible further review. 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).
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance
and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue
is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc.
v. Davis,
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2