Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50772/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50772-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Arredondo-Moreno
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50772

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL ARREDONDO-MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-2621-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Arredondo-Moreno appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation 

8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 

§ 1326(b)(2), which increased his statutory maximum sentence to 20 years of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release, is unconstitutional 

because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as 

* 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

February 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50772 Document: 00515318282 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2020
No. 19-50772

2

an element of a separate offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a 

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

the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent 

decisions indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in 

Almendarez-Torres.

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. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 

625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 

U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Arredondo-Moreno’s argument is foreclosed.

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: 19-50772 Document: 00515318282 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2020