Court Opinion

ID: 9966315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:00:36.807607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:44.407609
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50909            Document: 46-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024

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

                                                                                    FILED
                                    No. 23-50909                                   May 6, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                      Clerk

United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Edgar Cruz Robledo,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:23-CR-1183-1
                   ______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Edgar Cruz Robledo appeals following his conviction for illegal
reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), arguing for the first time on appeal
that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional.
He concedes this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50909      Document: 46-1       Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                               No. 23-50909

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and has filed an unopposed motion for summary
disposition.
       Because the argument is foreclosed, see United States v. Pervis, 937
F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019), summary disposition is appropriate, see
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                     2