Court Opinion

ID: 9385905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 18:00:34.002303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.090388
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50807         Document: 00516705994             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50807
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  April 10, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Gerardo Arturo Bueno-Chavira,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-210-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Gerardo Arturo Bueno-Chavira appeals his sentence for illegal reentry
   under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He raises two issues on appeal. First,
   he argues that the district court erred by entering judgment against him under
   8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Second, he avers that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional
   because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50807      Document: 00516705994           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/10/2023

                                     No. 22-50807

   maximum based on facts not charged or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
   In response, the Government has filed two unopposed motions to reform the
   judgment and for summary affirmance in part.
          As to whether the district court erred by entering judgment against
   Bueno-Chavira under § 1326(b)(2), review is for plain error because he did
   not raise this issue in the district court. United States v. Rodriguez-Flores, 25
   F.4th 385, 387 (5th Cir. 2022). To prevail on plain error review, he must
   show that there was (1) an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that
   affected his substantial rights. Id. “Once those three conditions have been
   met, the court of appeals should exercise its discretion to correct the forfeited
   error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation
   of judicial proceedings.” Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897,
   1905 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The district court clearly erred because Bueno-Chavira did not have
   any prior qualifying aggravated felony convictions. Moreover, this error
   affected his substantial rights because the erroneous judgment could have
   collateral consequences. See United States v. Ovalle-Garcia, 868 F.3d 313, 314
   (5th Cir. 2017). We also exercise our discretion to correct the error. See
   Rodriguez-Flores, 25 F.4th at 390. Thus, the judgment must be reformed to
   reflect the correct statutory subsection.
          Regarding Bueno-Chavira’s second claim, the parties are correct that
   this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224
   (1998). 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). Summary
   affirmance thus is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d
   1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
          Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance as to
   the Almendarez-Torres claim is GRANTED, the judgment is AFFIRMED

                                               2
Case: 22-50807     Document: 00516705994          Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/10/2023

                                   No. 22-50807

   as to that issue, and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of
   time to file a brief is DENIED. In addition, the Government’s motion to
   remand is GRANTED, and we REMAND to the district court for the
   limited purpose of reforming its judgment to reflect Bueno-Chavira’s
   conviction and sentencing under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). The Government’s
   alternative request that we reform the judgment on appeal is DENIED.

                                            3