Court Opinion

ID: 9384489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 00:00:17.822368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.959406
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50963          Document: 00516698450             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/03/2023

               United States Court of Appeals
                    for the Fifth Circuit
                                      _____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-50963                                      FILED
                                                                                       April 3, 2023
                                   consolidated with
                                       No. 22-50975                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                     _____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                        Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                              versus

   Victor Ruelas-Cienega,

                                                Defendant—Appellant.
                       ______________________________

                      Appeals from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                       USDC Nos. 4:19-CR-430-1, 4:22-CR-498-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
           Victor Ruelas-Cienega appeals his conviction and sentence under
   8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal entry into the United States after deportation. 1 He

           _____________________
           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
           1
            Ruelas-Cienega also appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the 10-
   month sentence imposed on revocation, but he has abandoned by failing to brief any
   argument challenging the revocation or revocation sentence. See United States v. Still,
   102 F.3d 118, 122 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case: 22-50963      Document: 00516698450         Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                      22-50963
                                  c/w No. 22-50975

   argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 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. Ruelas-
   Cienega has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition
   acknowledging that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
   v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for possible
   Supreme Court review.
          This court has 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). Thus, Ruelas-Cienega 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).
          Ruelas-Cienega’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s
   judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                             2