Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50621/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Angel Castillo-Castillo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50621

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANGEL CASTILLO-CASTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/No. 19-50634

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANGEL CASTILLO-CASTILLO, also known as Jose A. CastilloCastillo, also known as Jose Angel Castillo, also known as Angel Jose Castillo,

 Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-48-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-79-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50621 Document: 00515281455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2020
No. 19-50621

2

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Angel Castillo-Castillo appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 46 

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He also appeals the 

concomitant revocation of his supervised release related to a prior conviction 

for illegal reentry. Castillo-Castillo asserts that the enhancement of his 

sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which increased the maximum 

term of imprisonment to 20 years, is unconstitutional because of the treatment 

of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as an element of the offense 

that must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

As he concedes, this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United 

States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 

486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06

(5th Cir. 2008). Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Castillo-Castillo has not raised any argument with respect to his 

revocation proceedings. Any such claim is thus deemed abandoned. See Yohey 

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.

Case: 19-50621 Document: 00515281455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2020