Court Opinion

ID: 9385727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-08 00:00:27.991191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:04.156618
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50983         Document: 00516704881             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50983
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     April 7, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Gabriel Simental-Murillo,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-505-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Gabriel Simental-Murillo 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: 22-50983      Document: 00516704881          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/07/2023

                                    No. 22-50983

   are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable
   doubt. Simental-Murillo 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). Simental-Murillo 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, Simental-Murillo’s motion for summary disposition is
   GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             2