Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-51086/USCOURTS-ca5-19-51086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Benitez-Calderon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-51086

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE BENITEZ-CALDERON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-163-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Benitez-Calderon appeals his conviction and 27-month sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully present 

in the United States after previous deportation. He argues that his sentence 

was imposed under an unconstitutional statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). 

Specifically, he contends that in order to trigger a sentencing enhancement 

under § 1326(b), the fact of a prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment 

* 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

June 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-51086 Document: 00515451752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2020
No. 19-51086

2

and proven to a jury; therefore, he asserts that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. 

He correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. 

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he raises the issue to preserve it for 

further possible review. 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).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance 

and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue 

is foreclosed, 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: 19-51086 Document: 00515451752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2020