Court Opinion

ID: 9555745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 00:00:32.780662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:00.973290
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10980        Document: 00516856948             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-10980
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                 August 14, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Roberto Alaniz-Pimentel,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-22-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Roberto Alaniz-Pimentel appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into
   the United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
   1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that his sentence exceeds the statutory
   maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because the district court
   enhanced his sentence under § 1326(b) based on the fact of a prior conviction

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10980      Document: 00516856948            Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                      No. 22-10980

   that was not alleged in the indictment. However, he correctly concedes that
   this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
   224 (1998), and explains that he raises this issue to preserve it for further
   review. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). The
   Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance, or,
   alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief.
          Because 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