### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10521 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. STEVEN ADAM SEGOVIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:18

- CR

- 117

- 1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Steven Adam Segovia appeals the 175

- month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession “with intent to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine (actual). ” Citing the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), Segovia contends that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment r ights b y basing his guideline sentence on a drug amount in excess of 300 grams of methamphetamine that was not alleged in

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10521 Document: 00515259221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2020No. 19

- 10521

2 the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government moves fo r summary affirmance, arguing that Segovia’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Tuma , 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Bazemore , 839 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2016). In Tuma , this court held that a district court may make findings of fact that increase a defendant’s sentence if those facts do not expose the defendant to a n increased mandatory minimum sentence. Tuma , 738 F.3d at 693. Otherwise, a court’s “‘broad sentencing discretion, informed by judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth Amendment.’” Id . (quoting Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99, 116 (2013)); cf. also generally Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 490 (holding that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the pr escribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). Segovia suggests that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616, 619

- 24 (2016), called Tuma into question by invalidating Florida’s capital sentencing scheme to the extent it required the trial judge, not the jury, to find sufficient aggravating circumstances to justify the death penalty. He concedes, however, that in Bazemore this court reject ed a similar argument, explaining that Hurst “applies only to statutory schemes in which judge

- made findings increase the maximum sentence that a defendant can receive.” Bazemore , 839 F.3d at 392

- 93. Segovia was charged and convicted under a statute p roviding a minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum sentence of life in prison for a crime involving 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). Because the charged drug quantity supported Segovia’s 175

- month sentence , and the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, the sentence raises no constitutional concerns. See Bazemore , 839 F.3d at 392

- Case: 19-10521 Document: 00515259221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2020No. 19

- 10521

3 93 ; Tuma , 738 F.3d at 693

. We also note that , in any event, Segovia stipulated that his crime involved more than 300 grams of methamphetamine. Segovia ’s contention is clearly foreclosed, such that “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion f or summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government ’s alternative motion for additional time for briefing is DENIED. Case: 19-10521 Document: 00515259221 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2020