Court Opinion

ID: 9899159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 01:00:37.383153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:54.839786
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10559         Document: 00516968834             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023

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

                                       No. 23-10559
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                               November 15, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Vidal Garza-Morin,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-376-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant-Appellant Vidal Garza-Morin appeals his conviction and
   sentence for illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation under 8
   U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). On appeal, he renews his argument that the
   recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a
   sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10559       Document: 00516968834           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                      No. 23-10559

   § 1326(a), based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found
   by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. His ten-month term of imprisonment
   does not exceed the maximum in § 1326(a), but his three-year term of
   supervised release is only authorized by § 1326(b), by virtue of 18 U.S.C. §§
   3559(a)(3) and 3583(b)(2). Cf. §§ 3559(a)(5), 3583(b)(3) (setting a one-year
   maximum for an offense punishable under § 1326(a)).
          Garza-Morin acknowledges this 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. The Government
   has moved, without opposition, for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for
   an extension of time to file its brief.
          This court has 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). Garza-Morin is thus correct that
   his argument is foreclosed. Because the Government’s 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 affirmance is appropriate.            Groendyke
   Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
          The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
   and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s
   alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot.

                                             2