United States v. Amaya-Castaneda

Case: 22-10804 Document: 00516792740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10804
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 20, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Manuel Amaya-Castaneda,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-45-1
______________________________
Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Juan Manuel Amaya-Castaneda appeals the 37-month prison term
imposed under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) for his illegal presence in the United
States following removal. He concedes that the district court provided
adequate reasons for the guidelines sentence but asserts that it was further
obligated under Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), to specifically
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10804 Document: 00516792740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2023
No. 22-10804
address his nonfrivolous arguments for a downward variance. We review this
forfeited objection for plain error. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986
F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir. 2021).
The record reflects that the district court considered Amaya-
Castaneda’s straightforward and simple arguments for a below-guidelines
sentence and provided a reasoned basis for rejecting the request. The court
explained that a 37-month sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, provide just punishment, promote respect for the law, afford
deterrence, and protect the public. Under the circumstances, it did not
commit error, plain or otherwise, by failing to explicitly reference Amaya-
Castaneda’s arguments for a lower sentence. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 343-45,
356, 358-59; Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 584, 586-87 & nn.4-6.
Amaya-Castaneda also contends that the district court’s treatment of
his prior conviction as a sentencing factor and not an element of the offense
under § 1326(b)(1) violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and was
inconsistent with historical common law practice. He asserts, therefore, that
the court erred by imposing a sentence above the two-year statutory
maximum in § 1326(a). He correctly concedes, however, that the objection
is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226 (1998).
See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019).
Although Amaya-Castaneda’s appeal can be resolved without further
briefing, summary affirmance is not appropriate as to the first issue. See
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The
Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The
alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is
DENIED as unnecessary. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2