Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50779/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50779-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emilio Medina-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50779

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EMILIO MEDINA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-2905-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Emilio Medina-Rodriguez appeals the 37-month within-guidelines 

sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his 

guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that 

the enhancement of his sentence 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 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50779 Document: 00515267122 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2020
No. 19-50779

2

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

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

reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue whether a sentencing 

enhancement under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to 

a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). 

He contends, however, that subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that 

the Supreme Court may reconsider this issue, and he seeks to preserve the 

argument for possible Supreme Court review. 

In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239-47, the Supreme Court held that 

for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a

fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did 

not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 

497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 

99 (2013)); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 

2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). 

Thus, Medina-Rodriguez’s argument is foreclosed.

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.

Case: 19-50779 Document: 00515267122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2020