Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50833/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50833-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Arnulfo Pulido-Mendez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50833

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ARNULFO PULIDO-MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

__________________________________________________________________

Consolidated with No. 19-50834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JOSE ARNULFO PULIDO-MENDEZ, also known as Jose Arnulfo P M, also 

known as Jose Arnulfo Pulido, also known as Jose Pulido-Mendez, also known 

as Jose Mendez-Pulido, also known as Jose Arnulfo Mendez-Pulido,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-242-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-221-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50833 Document: 00515375854 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
No. 19-50833

c/w No. 19-50834

2

Before WIENER, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Arnulfo Pulido-Mendez appeals from a judgment revoking his 

previously-imposed supervised release and a judgment of conviction on his 

guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that 

the enhancement of his sentence based on his prior conviction pursuant to 

§ 1326(b)(1), which increased the statutory maximum term of imprisonment to 

10 years and the statutory maximum term of supervised release to three years 

for his new illegal reentry offense, is unconstitutional because his prior 

conviction is treated as a sentencing factor rather than an element of the 

offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue

for further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, urging 

that Pulido-Mendez’s argument is foreclosed.

The parties are correct that Pulido-Mendez’s argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 

2014); United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 

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

* 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.

Case: 19-50833 Document: 00515375854 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2020