Court Opinion

ID: 9908107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 19:00:46.541723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:54.663292
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50649        Document: 00516993495             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/07/2023

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

                                      No. 23-50649                                     FILED
                                                                                December 7, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Milton Martin Biester-Villeda,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:22-CR-1912-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Milton Martin Biester-Villeda appeals his conviction and sentence for
   illegal reentry after removal.          He argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is
   unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise applicable
   statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that are neither
   alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50649      Document: 00516993495          Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                    No. 23-50649

          Biester-Villeda has filed an unopposed motion for summary
   disposition and a letter brief correctly conceding that the only issue he raises
   is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). He
   seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. We have held
   that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
   U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), did not
   overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54
   (5th Cir. 2019).    Thus, Biester-Villeda is correct that his argument is
   foreclosed.
          Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Biester-Villeda’s motion is
   GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2