Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50675/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50675-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin De Vicente-Olvera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50675

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN DE VICENTE-OLVERA, also known as Martin Devicente-Olvera, 

also known as Martin De Vicente, also known as Martin Olvera,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-677-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin De Vicente-Olvera appeals the 33-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), 

* 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

May 18, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50675 Document: 00515419300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2020
No. 19-50675

2

the fact of a prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment 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 raises the issue to preserve 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: 19-50675 Document: 00515419300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2020