Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10471/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10471-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgardo Navarro
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10471

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGARDO NAVARRO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-279-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Edgardo Navarro appeals his sentence to 27 months of imprisonment 

and three years of supervised release following his guilty plea conviction for 

illegal reentry. He contends that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because the fact of a prior conviction 

must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While 

Navarro acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. 

 

* 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 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10471 Document: 00515281405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2020
No. 19-10471

2

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for 

possible Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court held in Almendarez-Torres that for purposes of a 

statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must 

be alleged in an indictment or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. 523 

U.S. at 239-47. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions

such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New 

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United 

States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, Navarro is correct that 

his argument is foreclosed, and summary affirmance is appropriate. See 

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

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 judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10471 Document: 00515281405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2020