Court Opinion

ID: 9403403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 00:00:32.44041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.666566
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10804        Document: 00516792740             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10804
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                  June 20, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Juan Manuel Amaya-Castaneda,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-45-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Juan Manuel Amaya-Castaneda appeals the 37-month prison term
   imposed under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) for his illegal presence in the United
   States following removal. He concedes that the district court provided
   adequate reasons for the guidelines sentence but asserts that it was further
   obligated under Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), to specifically

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10804      Document: 00516792740          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/20/2023

                                    No. 22-10804

   address his nonfrivolous arguments for a downward variance. We review this
   forfeited objection for plain error. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986
   F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir. 2021).
          The record reflects that the district court considered Amaya-
   Castaneda’s straightforward and simple arguments for a below-guidelines
   sentence and provided a reasoned basis for rejecting the request. The court
   explained that a 37-month sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness
   of the offense, provide just punishment, promote respect for the law, afford
   deterrence, and protect the public. Under the circumstances, it did not
   commit error, plain or otherwise, by failing to explicitly reference Amaya-
   Castaneda’s arguments for a lower sentence. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 343-45,
   356, 358-59; Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 584, 586-87 & nn.4-6.
          Amaya-Castaneda also contends that the district court’s treatment of
   his prior conviction as a sentencing factor and not an element of the offense
   under § 1326(b)(1) violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and was
   inconsistent with historical common law practice. He asserts, therefore, that
   the court erred by imposing a sentence above the two-year statutory
   maximum in § 1326(a). He correctly concedes, however, that the objection
   is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226 (1998).
   See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Although Amaya-Castaneda’s appeal can be resolved without further
   briefing, summary affirmance is not appropriate as to the first issue. See
   Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The
   Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED.                    The
   alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is
   DENIED as unnecessary.              The judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                              2