Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50388/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50388-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Quintana-Catalan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-50388

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Francisco Quintana-Catalan, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CR-408-1

______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Francisco Quintana-Catalan appeals his conviction and sentence for 

illegal reentry into the United States after having been previously removed in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that the recidivism 

enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence 

above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 10, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-50388 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
No. 24-50388

2

based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury 

beyond a reasonable doubt. His 46-month term of imprisonment exceeds the 

statutory maximum in § 1326(a), and his three-year term of supervised 

release is only authorized by § 1326(b), by virtue of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3) 

and 3583(b)(2).

Quintana-Catalan acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he nevertheless 

seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The Government 

has moved, without opposition, for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for 

an extension of time to file its brief.

This court has 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. 

Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Quintana-Catalan is thus correct 

that his argument is foreclosed. Because the Government’s position “is 

clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as 

to the outcome of the case,” summary affirmance is appropriate. Groendyke 

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

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 is DENIED.

Case: 24-50388 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2025