Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10655/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10655-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Contreras Saucedo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10655

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL CONTRERAS SAUCEDO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-604-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Contreras Saucedo appeals his 36-month, above-guidelines

sentence for illegally reentering the United States after removal. Although 

Contreras Saucedo admitted to only two prior removals, the district court 

found that he had eight prior removals, and that finding played some part in 

the sentence selected by the district court. Citing the rule of Apprendi v. New 

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), Contreras Saucedo contends that the district

* 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 20, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10655 Document: 00515317516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2020
No. 19-10655

2

court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by basing its sentence on 

his prior removals. The Government moves for summary affirmance, arguing 

that Contreras Saucedo’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Tuma, 

738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Bazemore, 839 F.3d 379 (5th 

Cir. 2016). Contreras Saucedo contends that the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), calls Tuma into question.

Contreras Saucedo correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed, 

and he raises it only to preserve the issue for future review. See Bazemore, 

839 F.3d at 392-93. The Government is “clearly right as a matter of law” such 

that “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” 

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

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED.

Case: 19-10655 Document: 00515317516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2020