Court Opinion

ID: 4521936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-02 18:00:25.552764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:23.207584
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-50788      Document: 00515369463         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/02/2020

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 19-50788                             April 2, 2020
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER GALINDO-CABALLERO,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:19-CR-82-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       Javier Galindo-Caballero appeals the 54-month sentence imposed
following conviction based on his guilty plea of illegal reentry after having been
previously removed.        He argues that his sentence was imposed under an
unconstitutional statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Specifically, he contends that in
order to trigger a sentencing enhancement under Section 1326(b), the fact of a
prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and proven to a jury;

       * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-50788     Document: 00515369463      Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/02/2020

                                  No. 19-50788

therefore, he asserts that Section 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He correctly
concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he makes the argument to preserve it for
further possible review. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th
Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625–26 (5th Cir.
2007).
      The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance
and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue
is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc.
v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
      Accordingly, 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 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                        2