Court Opinion

ID: 9375318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:43.20953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.667321
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50459     Document: 00516655763         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/24/2023

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

                                                                            FILED
                                No. 22-50459                         February 24, 2023
                            consolidated with                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                No. 22-50460                                Clerk
                              Summary Calendar
                              _____________

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Alejandro Vasquez-Santana,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                   USDC Nos. 4:22-CR-34-1, 7:16-CR-298-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

          _____________________
          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-50459      Document: 00516655763         Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/24/2023

          Alejandro Vasquez-Santana appeals his sentence for illegal reentry
   into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), as well as the
   judgment revoking his term of supervised release for committing the new
   offense. He has not briefed, and has therefore abandoned, any challenge to
   the revocation judgment imposed in the consolidated case. See United States
   v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Vasquez-Santana argues that the recidivism enhancement in
   § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the
   applicable maximum in § 1326(a), based on facts neither alleged in the
   indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. His three-year
   term of supervised release also exceeds the maximum in § 1326(a). Vasquez-
   Santana acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
   v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he nevertheless seeks to preserve it
   for possible Supreme Court review. Accordingly, Vasquez-Santana 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). As Vasquez-Santana concedes
   that his argument is foreclosed, summary disposition is appropriate. See
   Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
          Vasquez-Santana’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s
   judgments are AFFIRMED.