Court Opinion

ID: 9363384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:00:45.771795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.622574
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10625         Document: 00516610517             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10625
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               January 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Rodolfo Tovar-Zamarripa,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-197-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Rodolfo Tovar-Zamarripa 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)(1). He contends that the district court erred in determining
   that he was subject to a 10-year maximum sentence under § 1326(b) and in
   failing to adequately respond to his arguments for a lesser sentence. The
   Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance,
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10625       Document: 00516610517          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/13/2023

                                     No. 22-10625

   asserting that Tovar-Zamarripa’s arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-
   Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and United States v. Coto-
   Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021).
   Alternatively, the Government requests an extension of thirty days in which
   to file a merits brief.
            While Tovar-Zamarripa’s challenge to the imposition of a mandatory
   maximum sentence of 10 years is clearly foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, his
   challenge to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of his sentence
   entails a more involved analysis than is appropriate for a summary affirmance
   case. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
   1969).     Accordingly, we DENY the motion for summary affirmance.
   However, because this case may be resolved without further briefing, we also
   DENY, as unnecessary, the Government’s alternative motion for an
   extension of time. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir.
   2019).
            Tovar-Zamarripa argues that the district court erred in determining
   that he was subject to a 10-year maximum sentence under § 1326(b) because
   it was based on facts that were not alleged in the indictment nor found by a
   jury beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the district court did not err
   because this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States
   v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019).
            Because Tovar-Zamarripa did not object to the district court’s failure
   to address his arguments for a below guidelines sentence, we review only for
   plain error. See Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 585-86. In this case, the record
   reflects that the district court “listened to each argument . . . then simply
   found these circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the
   Guidelines range.”        Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007).
   Notwithstanding the brief nature of its explanation, the district court’s

                                          2
Case: 22-10625     Document: 00516610517           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/13/2023

                                    No. 22-10625

   explanation suffices to show that it considered the parties’ arguments and
   had a reasoned basis for its sentence. See United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d
   728, 732 (5th Cir. 2013).        Accordingly, Tovar-Zamarripa failed to
   demonstrate plain error in the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of
   the sentence. See Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 587.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3