Court Opinion

ID: 9408145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 18:01:17.279126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.266385
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50016         Document: 00516816333             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50016
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 11, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Javier Omar Quintana-Reyes,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-607-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Javier Omar Quintana-Reyes appeals his conviction and sentence for
   illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. On appeal, Quintana-
   Reyes contends that the recidivism enhancement in 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 facts that are neither
   alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50016      Document: 00516816333          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/11/2023

                                    No. 23-50016

   Although Quintana-Reyes acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless
   seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review and 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); United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d
   486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, Quintana-Reyes is correct that his
   argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate.             See
   Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
          IT IS ORDERED that Quintana-Reyes’s motion is GRANTED,
   and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2