United States v. Antonio Huerta-Nunez ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-50322     Document: 00515633320         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/10/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                            United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 20-50322                      November 10, 2020
    Summary Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Antonio Huerta-Nunez,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:19-CR-313-1
    Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Antonio Huerta-Nunez appeals his sentence of 21 months of
    imprisonment and two 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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50322     Document: 00515633320          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/10/2020
    No. 20-50322
    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 Huerta-Nunez’s argument is foreclosed.
    The parties are correct that Huerta-Nunez’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, and the judgment of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-50322

Filed Date: 11/10/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/11/2020