United States v. Julian Hernandez-Nevarez ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 20-50074      Document: 00515519287         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/07/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 20-50074
    FILED
    August 7, 2020
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JULIAN HERNANDEZ-NEVAREZ,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:19-CR-2969-1
    Before HAYNES, WILLETT and HO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Julian Hernandez-Nevarez appeals the within-guidelines, 37-month
    sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering
    the United States after removal, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    . He argues
    that his sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional sentencing provision
    because § 1326(b) permits a defendant’s sentence to be enhanced even if the
    fact of a prior conviction is not alleged in the indictment and proved beyond a
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 20-50074     Document: 00515519287      Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/07/2020
    No. 20-50074
    reasonable doubt.     He correctly concedes that his claim is foreclosed by
    Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998), but he raises the
    issue to preserve it for further possible 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).
    Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
    GRANTED, 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.
    2