United States v. Rolando-Padilla ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Case: 23-50306         Document: 00516999024             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/12/2023
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    ____________
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 23-50306
    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
    ____________                              December 12, 2023
    Lyle W. Cayce
    United States of America,                                                           Clerk
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Melvin Rolando-Padilla,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    ______________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 2:22-CR-1151-1
    ______________________________
    Before Davis, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam: *
    Melvin Rolando-Padilla appeals the sentence imposed following his
    conviction for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a). He contends for the first time on appeal that the sentencing
    enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence
    above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a)
    _____________________
    *
    This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
    Case: 23-50306      Document: 00516999024          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/12/2023
    No. 23-50306
    based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury
    beyond a reasonable doubt. Rolando-Padilla has filed an unopposed motion
    for summary disposition acknowledging that this argument is foreclosed by
    Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998), and explaining that
    he seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.
    We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as
    Alleyne v. United States, 
    570 U.S. 99
     (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v.
    Pervis, 
    937 F.3d 546
    , 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Rolando-Padilla is, therefore,
    correct that his argument is foreclosed. Accordingly, 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
    judgment is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-50306

Filed Date: 12/12/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2023