Court Opinion

ID: 9389696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 00:00:20.856507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.052794
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40348       Document: 00516724930             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023

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

                                                                          FILED
                                     No. 22-40348                     April 25, 2023
                                   Summary Calendar
                                   ____________                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Jose Villatoro-Avila,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:21-CR-361-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Jose Villatoro-Avila appeals his 27-month, above-guidelines range
   sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
   (b)(2). Relying on Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi

           _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-40348      Document: 00516724930          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/25/2023

                                    No. 22-40348

   v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), he contends that the district court erred
   by exposing him to an enhanced statutory maximum sentence of 20 years
   under § 1326(b)(2) based on a finding that his removal was subsequent to a
   conviction for an aggravated felony because the fact of his prior conviction
   was neither alleged in the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt
   to the trier of fact. Villatoro-Avila, however, concedes that this argument is
   foreclosed by United States v. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he
   raises it only to preserve the issue for future Supreme Court review.
   Accordingly, he moves for summary disposition.
          In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that a prior conviction
   used to increase a defendant’s maximum sentence under § 1326(b) is a
   sentencing factor, not an element of the offense that must be charged in the
   indictment and proven to a jury. 523 U.S. at 228, 235. Almendarez-Torres
   “remains binding precedent until and unless it is officially overruled by the
   Supreme Court.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th
   Cir. 2007). This court recently reaffirmed that neither Alleyne nor Apprendi
   overruled Almendarez-Torres. United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54
   (5th Cir. 2019).    Consequently, Villatoro-Avila is “clearly right” that
   Almendarez-Torres forecloses appellate relief on his claim of sentencing error,
   “so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.”
   Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
          The motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the
   judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                             2