Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50755/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50755-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Estrada-Eugenio
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50755

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO ESTRADA-EUGENIO, also known as Alfredo Erasto EstradaEugenio,

Defendant-Appellant

_______________________________

Consolidated with 19-50763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO ESTRADA-EUGENIO, also known as Juan Eugenio Medina, also 

known as Alfredo Estarada, also known as Alfredo Estrada Eugenio, also 

known as Alfredo Eugenio-Estrada, also known as Alfredo Estrada, also 

known as Alfredo Erasto Estrada-Eugenio, also known as Gerardo

Amezquita,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-254-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-110-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50755 Document: 00515347254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
No. 19-50755

c/w No. 19-50763

2

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Estrada-Eugenio appeals his within-Guidelines sentence of 52 

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. 

Additionally, he appeals the revocation of his supervised release related to a 

prior conviction for illegal reentry. Estrada-Eugenio argues that the 

enhancement of his sentence for his new illegal reentry offense pursuant to 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which increased the maximum sentence to 20 years of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release, is unconstitutional 

because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as 

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

a reasonable doubt. He concedes that his argument that a prior conviction 

must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to 

preserve the argument for possible Supreme Court review.

Estrada-Eugenio’s argument is indeed foreclosed. United States v. 

Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 

492 F.3d 624, 625–26 (5th Cir. 2007). Estrada-Eugenio 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 district court’s judgments are 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: 19-50755 Document: 00515347254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2020