Court Opinion

ID: 9841226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:00:59.406267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:07.689127
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10140         Document: 00516903186             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                     _____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10140
                                  consolidated with                                    FILED
                                      No. 23-10146                            September 21, 2023
                                    _____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Santiago Salazar-Ramirez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC Nos. 3:22-CR-230-1,
                                    3:22-CR-117-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Santiago Salazar-Ramirez appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into
   the United States after being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
   (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

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10140      Document: 00516903186           Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                       23-10140
                                   c/w No. 23-10146

   to his removal, the district court erred by imposing a term of supervised
   release that exceeded one year. However, he 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. 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