Court Opinion

ID: 9899160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 01:00:38.325333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:17.806441
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50522         Document: 00516969178             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50522
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              November 15, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Noel Alvarez-Meza,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:23-CR-76-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Noel Alvarez-Meza appeals the sentence imposed following his
   conviction for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C.
   § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He contends that the sentencing enhancement in
   § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the
   otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50522      Document: 00516969178          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 23-50522

   facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a
   reasonable doubt. He acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to
   preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. He therefore has filed an
   unopposed motion for summary disposition.
          We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as
   Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
   U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v.
   Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Alvarez-Meza is, therefore,
   correct that his argument is foreclosed. Accordingly, because summary
   disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp. Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
   1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Alvarez-Meza’s motion is GRANTED, and the district
   court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         2