Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50771/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50771-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reynaldo Esparza-Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50769

Summary Calendar

Consolidated with 19-50771

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

REYNALDO ESPARZA-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:17-CR-653-1

USDC No. 2:19-CR-339-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Esparza-Lopez appeals from a judgment revoking his 

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

his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States 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 

* 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 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50771 Document: 00515324558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
No. 19-50769

c/w No. 19-50771

2

term of imprisonment to 10 years for his 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. As he concedes, the issue is 

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres 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. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 

(5th Cir. 2008) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 

(2000)). Thus, Esparza-Lopez’s argument is foreclosed.

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. 

Case: 19-50771 Document: 00515324558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020