Court Opinion

ID: 9382545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 00:00:41.557833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:40.170444
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10784         Document: 00516690436             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2023

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

                                       No. 22-10784
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                 March 27, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Juan Victor Quezada-Lara,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-105-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Juan Victor Quezada-Lara pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following
   removal and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 30 months
   in prison. He asserts that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum term
   of imprisonment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and contends that his indictment
   did not allege an offense punishable pursuant to § 1326(b) because it failed to

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10784       Document: 00516690436           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                      No. 22-10784

   identify a prior conviction. He suggests that his sentence violates due process
   because § 1326(b) permits the imposition of 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.
            Quezada-Lara concedes that his claim is foreclosed and states that he
   wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved for
   summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief.
            The parties are correct that the issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v.
   Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, summary affirmance is
   appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
   Cir. 1969).
            Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
   GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time
   to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                           2