Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50624/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50624-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Chairez-Medina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50623

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO RODOLFO CHAIREZ-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant

Consolidated with 19-50624

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO RODOLFO CHAIREZ-MEDINA, also known as Mario Rodolfo 

Chairez-Medina, also known as Rodolfo Chairez-Medina, also known as Juan 

Carlos Garcia, also known as Juan Carlos Martinez-Garcia, also known as 

Rodolfo Mario Chairez-Medina, also known as Mario Rodolfo Medina-Chairez, 

also known as Rodolfo Mario Medina-Chairez, also known as Mario Rodolfo 

Medina, also known as Mario Rodolfo Chairez, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-225-1

USDC No. 4:18-CR-795-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50624 Document: 00515328788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2020
No. 19-50623

c/w No. 19-50624

2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Rodolfo Chairez-Medina appeals from a judgment revoking his 

previously-imposed supervised release and a judgment of conviction on his 

guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that 

the enhancement of his sentence based on his prior conviction pursuant to 

§ 1326(b)(2), which increased the statutory maximum term of imprisonment to 

20 years for his illegal reentry offense, is unconstitutional because his prior 

conviction is treated as a sentencing factor rather than an element of the 

offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue 

for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent decisions 

indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in AlmendarezTorres. The Government moves for summary affirmance, urging that Chairez’s 

argument is foreclosed.

The parties are correct that Chairez’s argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres. 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). 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 

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

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED AS MOOT, and the judgments of the district court 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: 19-50624 Document: 00515328788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2020