eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2022-03

United States v. Gomez-Godinez ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 21-51020     Document: 00516245651         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 18, 2022
No. 21-51020
consolidated with                            Lyle W. Cayce
No. 21-51029                                  Clerk
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alex Manuel Gomez-Godinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-440-1
USDC No. 4:18-CR-240-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alex Manuel Gomez-Godinez’s appeal of the 21-month sentence of
imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-51020     Document: 00516245651          Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/18/2022
No. 21-51020 c/w No. 21-51029
after removal from the United States has been consolidated with his appeal
of the judgment revoking the term of supervised release he was serving at the
time of the offense.    Because his appellate brief does not address the
revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that
judgment. See Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Gomez-Godinez contends that the enhancement of his illegal reentry
sentence pursuant to
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b) was unconstitutional because the
fact of a prior conviction was not charged and proved to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt.      He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
    523 U.S. 224
    , 226-27 (1998), but seeks to
preserve the issue for further review. Accordingly, he has filed an unopposed
motion for summary disposition.
We conclude that Gomez-Godinez’s concession of foreclosure is
correct, and summary disposition is appropriate. See United States v. Pervis,
    937 F.3d 546
    , 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019); Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the defendant-appellant’s unopposed motion for
summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.
2