Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0305-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ceasar LIMON-PACIAS, also known as Cesar Limon-Pasillas, also known as Cesor Limon P., also known as Pacias Ceaser Limon, also known as Jesus Culler, also known as Jesus J. Carreron, also known as Cesar P. Limon, also known as Cesar Pasillas-Limon, also known as Jesus Montalvo-Cuellar, also known as Cesar Ivan, also known as Cesar Limon, also known as Cesar Pasilla, also known as Jose Rivera, also known as Jesus Carreon, also known as Jesus Cuellar Montalvo, also known as Jose Culler, also known as Cesar Limon P., also known as Cesar Limon-Pacias, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-51042
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 10, 2014.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      M. Carolyn Fuentes, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ceasar Limon-Pacias appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission, following removal. He contends that his sentence violates due process because it was enhanced under § 1326(b)(2) based on. a prior conviction that was not charged in the indictment. Limon-Pacias acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but raises the issue to preserve it for further review. He contends that the Supreme Court is likely to revisit its decision, which has been cast into doubt by Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. —, — n. 1, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160 n. 1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

In Almendarez-Toms, the Supreme Court held that § 1326(b)(2)’s enhancement provision was a sentencing factor and not a separate criminal offense which must be alleged in the indictment and submitted to a jury to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Although the Supreme Court has expressed some doubt as to whether Almendarez-Toms was correctly decided, it has declined to revisit that decision. See Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2160 n. 1; Apprendi 530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Because Almendarez-Torres remains binding precedent, Limon-Pacias’s argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Wallace, No. 12-51192, 759 F.3d 486, 2014 WL 3558003, at 9-10 (5th Cir. July 18, 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.