Court Opinion

ID: 9352842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 01:00:22.633887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:00:55.319582
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50384         Document: 00516602845             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/09/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50384
                                  consolidated with                                    FILED
                                     No. 22-50402                                January 9, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Miguel Ortiz-Castillo,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-674-1
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-744-1

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Miguel Ortiz-Castillo appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal
   reentry after removal, as well as the judgment revoking his term of supervised
   release for committing a new offense. He has not briefed, and has therefore

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50384      Document: 00516602845         Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                    No. 22-50384
                                  c/w No. 22-50402
   abandoned, any challenge to the revocation of supervised release or his
   revocation sentence. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).
          For the first time on appeal, Ortiz-Castillo argues that his sentence
   exceeds the statutory maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because the
   district court enhanced his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on facts
   that were neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a
   reasonable doubt. While he acknowledges that this 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. In addition, Ortiz-
   Castillo has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition.
          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, Ortiz-Castillo 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).
          Ortiz-Castillo’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s
   judgments are AFFIRMED.

                                          2