Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50931/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50931-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Meza-Cruz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50931

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS MEZA-CRUZ, 

Defendant-Appellant

********************************************************

Consolidated with 19-50941

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS MEZA-CRUZ, also known as Carlos Meza Cruz, also known as Carlos 

Meza-Ruiz, also known as Jesus Meza, also known as Carlos Mesa-Cruz, also 

known as Carlos Cruz Mesa,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-527-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-263-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50931 Document: 00515422126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2020
No. 19-50931

c/w No. 19-50941

2

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Meza-Cruz appeals his 70-month within-guidelines sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal from the 

United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals the concomitant 

revocation of his supervised release related to his prior convictions for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(D), possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 

in violation of § 841(b)(1)(D), and illegal reentry of a removed alien, in violation 

of § 1326. 

Raising one issue on appeal, Meza-Cruz argues that his new illegal 

reentry sentence, imposed under § 1326(b)(2), violates his due process rights 

by exceeding the two-year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a) because 

the indictment did not allege a prior conviction necessary for the § 1326(b)(2) 

enhancement. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but seeks to preserve the 

issue for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for 

summary affirmance agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the 

alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. 

As the Government argues, and Meza-Cruz concedes, the sole issue 

raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See 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). Because the issue is foreclosed, summary 

* 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: 19-50931 Document: 00515422126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2020
No. 19-50931

c/w No. 19-50941

3

affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 

1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

Although the appeals of Meza-Cruz’s illegal reentry conviction and 

supervised release revocation were consolidated, he does not address the 

revocation in his appellate brief. Consequently, he has abandoned any 

challenge to the revocation or revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 

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

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The 

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

DENIED.

Case: 19-50931 Document: 00515422126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2020