Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50707/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50707-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Campos-Lagunas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50707

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR CAMPOS-LAGUNAS, also known as Jose Lopez-Lomali, also known 

as Carlos Ortiz, also known as Orbelin Lagunas Campos, also known as 

Orbelin Campos Lagunas, also known as Carlos Laguna Campos, also known 

as Lagunas Campos, also known as Oscar Laguan Campos, also known as 

Norbelio Campos-Lagunas, also known as Carlo Garcia, also known as Oberlin 

Campos,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CR-62-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Campos-Lagunas appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 

* 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 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50707 Document: 00515302062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2020
No. 19-50707

2

§ 1326(b)(2), which increased his statutory maximum sentence to 20 years of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release, is unconstitutional 

because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as 

an element of a separate offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. He concedes that this issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, 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 

Almendarez-Torres.

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, Campos-Lagunas’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: 19-50707 Document: 00515302062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2020