eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-08

United States v. Guillermo Campos-Morales ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-50097        Document: 00515535007             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/20/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
_____________                                  August 20, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
No. 20-50097                                      Clerk
consolidated with
No. 20-50098
Summary Calendar
______________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Guillermo Antonio Campos-Morales,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-693-1
USDC No. 4:19-CR-703-1
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 20-50097       Document: 00515535007          Page: 2       Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 20-50097
c/w No. 20-50098
Guillermo Antonio Campos-Morales appeals the 16-month, within-
guidelines prison term and three-year supervised release term imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States
after removal. He also appeals a separate revocation judgment but raises no
challenge to the revocation of his supervised release.
Campos-Morales argues that under the principles articulated in
Apprendi v. New Jersey,
    530 U.S. 466 
    (2000), and Alleyne v. United States,
    570 U.S. 99 
    (2013), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits an
enhanced penalty based on the fact of a prior felony conviction not alleged in
the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.                The
Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and,
alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief.
As the Government argues and as Campos-Morales concedes, this
issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
    523 U.S. 224 
     (1998). 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). 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, and the judgments are AFFIRMED.                       The Government’s
alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED.
2