Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50530/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50530-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Armando Nunez-Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50528

Summary Calendar

Consolidated with 19-50530

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ARMANDO NUNEZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-862-1

USDC No. 4:11-CR-376-6

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Armando Nunez-Lopez filed notices of appeal from the order 

revoking his supervised release and from a new judgment of conviction entered 

after his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues that the enhancement of his 

sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which increased the statutory 

 

* 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

January 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50530 Document: 00515282865 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2020
No. 19-50528

2

maximum term of imprisonment to 20 years for his illegal reentry offense, is 

unconstitutional because of the 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. Nunez-Lopez 

concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the argument for possible 

Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent decisions indicate that 

the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in Almendarez-Torres.

In that opinion, 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. Id. at 239–47. 

This court has 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. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505–06 (5th Cir. 2008) (considering 

the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, NunezLopez’s argument is foreclosed.

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 judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-50530 Document: 00515282865 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2020