Court Opinion

ID: 9881507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 00:00:33.607408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.430126
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10251         Document: 00516916745             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10251
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                October 2, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Vidal Orellana-Sibrian,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-408-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Vidal Orellana-Sibrian appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into the
   United States after being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and
   (b)(1). He argues that because the indictment did not allege, and he did not
   admit as part of his guilty plea, that he sustained a qualifying conviction prior
   to his removal, the district court erred by imposing a sentence that exceeded

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10251      Document: 00516916745               Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/02/2023

                                         No. 23-10251

   the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a).
   However, he correctly concedes that this argument is foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he raises this
   issue merely to preserve it for further review. See United States v. Pervis, 937
   F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). The Government has moved, without
   opposition, for summary affirmance, or in the alternative, for an extension of
   time to file a brief on the merits.
          Because summary affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), 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 district
   court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                              2