Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50521/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50521-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pablo Urias Bejarano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50521

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PABLO URIAS BEJARANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-699-1

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Pablo Urias Bejarano 

contends that a prior aggravated felony conviction is an element of the offense 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that must be alleged in the indictment and 

admitted by the defendant or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As 

he concedes, the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 

U.S. 224 (1998).

 

* 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 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50521 Document: 00515278845 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
No. 19-50521

2

In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239-47, 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. 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)). 

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, see

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

Case: 19-50521 Document: 00515278845 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2020