Court Opinion

ID: 9391365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 00:00:30.992239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.488426
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51090         Document: 00516732786             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/01/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 22-51090                                   May 1, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Alejandro Holguin,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-571-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Alejandro Holguin 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 are neither alleged in

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51090     Document: 00516732786           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                    No. 22-51090

   the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Holguin
   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). Holguin 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 proper. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
   406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
          Accordingly, Holguin’s motion for summary disposition is
   GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             2