Court Opinion

ID: 9904839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 01:00:37.426144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.136307
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50245         Document: 00516980133             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/27/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50245
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                             November 27, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Pedro Nimaja-Pol,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-757-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Pedro Nimaja-Pol appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal
   reentry following removal. He first argues the district court erred in entering
   a judgment reflecting that his conviction was under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)
   because he did not have a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. Because
   he did not raise this issue in the district court, our review is limited to plain

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50245      Document: 00516980133           Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/27/2023

                                     No. 23-50245

   error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show plain
   error, he must demonstrate a clear or obvious error that affects his substantial
   rights. Id. If he makes this showing, we have discretion to correct that error
   but should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings.”        Id. (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). The Government agrees that the judgment is incorrect and
   moves to reform it to reflect the correct statute of conviction, § 1326(b)(1).
          Nimaja-Pol has a 2018 state conviction for one count of possession of
   child pornography and one count of possession or promotion of child
   pornography. The Texas child pornography statute prohibits the possession
   of material visually depicting a child under 18 years of age engaging in sexual
   conduct, including “lewd exhibition of . . . any portion of the female breast
   below the top of the areola.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.25(a)(2); see
   Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.26(a). The Texas statute sweeps more
   broadly than the federal statute prohibiting the possession of child
   pornography, which does not cover such conduct.                 See 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 2252(a)(4), 2256(2)(A)(v). Thus, the Texas offense of possession of or
   promoting child pornography is not categorically an aggravated felony under
   8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(I). See United States v. Vega, 960 F.3d 669, 675 (5th
   Cir. 2020). We therefore exercise our discretion to correct the error. See
   United States v. Rodriguez-Flores, 25 F.4th 385, 390–91 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Next, Nimaja-Pol argues for the first time on appeal that his sentence
   exceeds the statutory maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because the
   district court enhanced his sentence under § 1326(b) based on facts that were
   neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable
   doubt. While he acknowledges 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. The Government agrees and has filed
   a motion for summary affirmance.

                                           2
Case: 23-50245     Document: 00516980133          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/27/2023

                                   No. 23-50245

          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). Thus, Nimaja-Pol 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).
          The Government’s motion to reform the judgment is DENIED, and
   the Government’s alternative motion to remand the case to reform the
   judgment is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the district court
   for the limited purpose of reforming the judgment to reflect conviction and
   sentencing under § 1326(b)(1). The Government’s motion for summary
   affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an extension of
   time is DENIED. The judgment is otherwise AFFIRMED.

                                          3