Court Opinion

ID: 9908438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 19:00:50.774016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:11.942830
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50320         Document: 00516994682             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50320
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               December 8, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Luis Fernando Contreras-Juarez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:22-CR-1240-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Luis Fernando Contreras-Juarez appeals his guilty plea conviction and
   sentence for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)
   and (b)(2). He 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

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50320      Document: 00516994682          Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/08/2023

                                    No. 23-50320

   are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable
   doubt. Contreras-Juarez acknowledges 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. Accordingly, he has filed an
   unopposed motion for summary disposition.
          We have 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). Contreras-Juarez is, therefore, correct that his
   argument is foreclosed. Because his position “is clearly right as a matter of
   law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
   case,” summary disposition is “necessary and proper.” Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
          Accordingly, Contreras-Juarez’s unopposed motion for summary
   disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                          2