United States v. Campuzano-Henao ( 2023 )

Case: 22-51064 Document: 00516765867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-51064
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 26, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Luis Ferney Campuzano-Henao,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-51066
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Luis Ferney Campuzano Henao,
Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-51064 Document: 00516765867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
No. 22-51064
c/w No. 22-51066
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC Nos. 4:22-CR-609-1, 4:22-CR-616-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Luis Ferney Campuzano-Henao appeals his conviction and sentence
for illegal reentry after removal from the United States, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b). He also appeals the revocation of his supervised
release and the sentence imposed upon revocation; however, because he does
not address either the validity of the revocation or the revocation sentence,
he has abandoned any challenge to those issues on appeal. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
With respect to his illegal reentry conviction and sentence,
Campuzano-Henao argues that the application of § 1326(b)’s enhanced
penalty provision is unconstitutional because it permits a defendant to be
sentenced above the statutory maximum of § 1326(a) based on the fact of a
prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt. He has filed an unopposed motion for summary
disposition and a letter brief conceding that the issue is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), see United States v.
Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019), and explaining that he raises the
issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2
Case: 22-51064 Document: 00516765867 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
22-51064
c/w No. 22-51066
Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the motion is GRANTED,
and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.
3