Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50764/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50764-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abdias Rodriguez-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50764

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABDIAS RODRIGUEZ-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-366-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abdias Rodriguez-Ramirez appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 16 

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed 

following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry. He asserts that the 

enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which 

increased the maximum term of imprisonment to 20 years and the maximum 

term of supervised release to three years, is unconstitutional because 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

February 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50764 Document: 00515309632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2020
No. 19-50764

2

treatment of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as an element of 

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

a reasonable doubt.

As Rodriguez-Ramirez concedes, this issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). 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). Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. 

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

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: 19-50764 Document: 00515309632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2020