United States v. Sanchez-Delgado ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10304 Document: 00516930399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10304
consolidated with FILED
No. 23-10322 October 13, 2023
_____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Miguel Angel Sanchez-Delgado,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 3:22-CR-72-1, 3:19-CR-11-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Miguel Angel Sanchez-Delgado appeals his 48-month prison sentence
and two-year term of supervised release for illegally reentering the United
States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10304 Document: 00516930399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2023
23-10304
c/w No. 23-10322
that his sentence under § 1326(b)(1) violates the Sixth Amendment.
Specifically, he contends that, because his indictment did not allege, and he
did not admit, that he had a prior felony conviction, his prison sentence
should not exceed two years and the term of supervised release should not
exceed one year. Sanchez-Delgado has not briefed any argument regarding
the consolidated appeal from his supervised release revocation proceeding.
Sanchez-Delgado correctly concedes that his Sixth Amendment
argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224(1998), but he wishes to preserve it for further review. See United States v.
Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). The Government has moved
without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension
of time to file its brief.
Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law
so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,”
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969),
summary affirmance is proper. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for
summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of
time to file a brief is DENIED.
2