Court Opinion

ID: 9894801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 00:00:35.79321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:46.346925
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10190         Document: 00516954264             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/02/2023

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

                                                                                         FILED
                                       No. 23-10190                               November 2, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________
                                                                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Emmanuel Gil,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-292-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Emmanuel Gil appeals his sentence of 53 months of imprisonment and
   three years of supervised release for illegally reentering the United States
   after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He argues that
   § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise
   applicable two-year statutory maximum of imprisonment in § 1326(a) based

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10190      Document: 00516954264               Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/02/2023

                                         No. 23-10190

   on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond
   a reasonable doubt. He also argues that his three-year term of supervised
   release is unconstitutional for the same reasons, as it exceeds the one-year
   maximum that would apply under § 1326(a) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559 and 3583.
   However, he correctly concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he raises them
   merely to preserve them for further review. See United States v. Pervis, 937
   F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). 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
   unopposed 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