Court Opinion

ID: 9909590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 19:00:37.600595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:14.897245
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50344        Document: 00516999969             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50344
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              December 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Bartolo Damaso-Sixtos,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:22-CR-1500-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Defendant-Appellant Bartolo Damaso-Sixtos appeals his conviction
   and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal entry into the United States
   after removal. He argues for the first time on appeal that § 1326(b) is
   unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-
   applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50344       Document: 00516999969         Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                    No. 23-50344

   are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable
   doubt.     Damaso-Sixtos has filed an unopposed motion for summary
   disposition. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-
   Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the
   argument 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); United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d
   486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014).      Damaso-Sixtos is therefore correct that his
   argument is foreclosed and that summary disposition is appropriate. See
   Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
            Damaso-Sixtos’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is
   GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2