Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50578/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
German Milla-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50578

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

GERMAN MILLA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-953-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

German Milla-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal entry and now appeals 

his sentence of 60 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. 

He contends that the recidivism enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is 

unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable 

statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment 

nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Milla-Rodriguez 

* 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

March 24, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50578 Document: 00515357737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2020
No. 19-50578

2

acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. 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. We have 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. Pineda-Arrellano, 

492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, Milla-Rodriguez 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

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot.

Case: 19-50578 Document: 00515357737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2020