Court Opinion

ID: 9957112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 18:00:51.464391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.669445
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10937            Document: 40-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/03/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-10937
                                  Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                  ____________                                     April 3, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Daniel Salgado,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:23-CR-82-1
                   ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Daniel Salgado appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry
after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). Salgado argues
that treating a prior felony conviction that increases the statutory maximum
under § 1326(b) as a sentencing factor, rather than a separate element of the
offense, violates the Constitution.           While Salgado’s 12-month term of

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10937         Document: 40-1      Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/03/2024

                                  No. 23-10937

imprisonment is within the otherwise applicable statutory maximum in
§ 1326(a), he complains that his three-year term of supervised release
exceeds the one-year statutory maximum that applies without a § 1326(b)
enhancement.       See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(b).      However, Salgado
concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and merely raises this issue to preserve it for
further review. The Government therefore has filed an unopposed motion
for summary affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a
brief.
         Because Salgado is correct that his argument is foreclosed, see United
States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019), summary affirmance is
appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969). 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 district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                       2