Court Opinion

ID: 9915007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 01:00:37.038257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:20.441293
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10486         Document: 00517020523             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/03/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                     _____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10486
                                  consolidated with                                    FILED
                                      No. 23-10496                               January 3, 2024
                                    _____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Armando Ordonez-Dominguez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                       USDC Nos. 2:22-CR-129-1, 2:22-CR-117-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Armando Ordonez-Dominguez was sentenced to 37 months of
   imprisonment and three years of supervised release following his guilty plea
   and conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of
   8 U.S.C. § 1326. He appeals his sentence and argues for the first time on
   appeal that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a defendant to be
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10486      Document: 00517020523          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/03/2024

                                        23-10486
                                    c/w No. 23-10496

   sentenced above the statutory maximum of § 1326(a) based on facts that are
   neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable
   doubt. He does not appeal the revocation of his supervised release or his
   revocation sentence.
          Ordonez-Dominguez correctly concedes 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). He raises the issue to preserve
   it for Supreme Court 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
   unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district
   court’s judgments are AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion
   for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

                                           2