Court Opinion

ID: 9894156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 18:00:57.881826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:53.343277
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50455         Document: 00516950246             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50455
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               October 31, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Noemy Ramirez-Gomez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:22-CR-627-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Noemy Ramirez-Gomez appeals his conviction and sentence for
   illegal reentry after removal. The sole argument he raises on appeal is 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

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50455      Document: 00516950246          Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/31/2023

                                    No. 23-50455

   facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a
   reasonable doubt.
          Ramirez-Gomez filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition
   and a letter brief conceding that this issue 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,
   Ramirez-Gomez 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), Ramirez-Gomez’s motion
   is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2