Court Opinion

ID: 9364941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 19:00:26.740711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.499726
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50366     Document: 00516617579         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023

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

                                  No. 22-50366
                                                                            FILED
                                                                     January 20, 2023
                                Summary Calendar
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Noe Jose Thomas,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:21-CR-1028-1

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Noe Jose Thomas appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for
   illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). On
   appeal, he argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is
   unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-50366      Document: 00516617579         Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/20/2023

                                   No. 22-50366

   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.     Thomas acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to
   preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Accordingly, he 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). Thomas is correct that his
   argument is foreclosed. Because his 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, Thomas’s motion for summary disposition is
   GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          2