Court Opinion

ID: 4509527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-02-21 19:00:23.110863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:51.152640
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-50772      Document: 00515318282         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/21/2020

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                                                 FILED
                                    No. 19-50772                          February 21, 2020
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL ARREDONDO-MORENO,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:18-CR-2621-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       Joel Arredondo-Moreno appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation
8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to
§ 1326(b)(2), which increased his statutory maximum sentence to 20 years of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release, is unconstitutional
because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as

       * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-50772    Document: 00515318282    Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/21/2020

                                No. 19-50772

an element of a separate offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. He concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve
the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent
decisions indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in
Almendarez-Torres.
      In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239-47, the Supreme Court held that
for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a
fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt.    This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court
decisions did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace,
759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United
States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624,
625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Arredondo-Moreno’s argument is foreclosed.
      Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to
file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                      2