Court Opinion

ID: 9950737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 18:00:48.721952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:38.368312
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50688            Document: 50-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                  _____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-50688
                               consolidated with                                    FILED
                                   No. 23-50690                               March 14, 2024
                                 _____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Rogaciano Demetrio-Jimenez,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC Nos. 4:23-CR-212-1,
                                 4:23-CR-325-1
                   ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Defendant-Appellant Rogaciano Demetrio-Jimenez pleaded guilty to
illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 46 months
of imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, arguing that the recidivism
enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50688       Document: 50-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/14/2024

                                   23-50688
                               c/w No. 23-50690

above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a)
based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt. He does not appeal the revocation of his
supervised release or his revocation sentence. Although Demetrio-Jimenez
acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible
Supreme Court review and has filed an unopposed motion for summary
disposition.
       This court has 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). Thus, Demetrio-Jimenez is
correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is
appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969).
       Demetrio-Jimenez’s motion is GRANTED, and the judgment is
AFFIRMED.

                                      2