Court Opinion

ID: 9899986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 01:00:28.52119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.298897
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50351        Document: 00516972593             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50351
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              November 17, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Angelina Pascual-Juan,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-782-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Defendant-Appellant Angelina Pascual-Juan appeals her guilty plea
   conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8
   U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). She argues that the recidivism enhancement in
   § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the
   otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) through

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50351      Document: 00516972593           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                     No. 23-50351

   reliance on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury
   beyond a reasonable doubt.        She acknowledges that this argument is
   foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but
   she seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Accordingly, she
   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). Pascual-Juan is, therefore,
   correct that her argument is foreclosed. Because her position “is clearly right
   as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
   outcome of the case,” summary disposition is proper. Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
          Accordingly, Pascual-Juan’s motion for summary disposition is
   GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          2