Court Opinion

ID: 9384493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 00:00:23.134874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.809371
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50640     Document: 00516698784         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/03/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                               _____________
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                No. 22-50640
                            consolidated with                               FILED
                                No. 22-50641                             April 3, 2023
                              _____________                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Miguel Lux-Tum,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:21-CR-299-1
                            USDC No. 4:22-CR-83-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Miguel Lux-Tum appeals his conviction and sentence for reentry after
   deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). Lux-Tum argues that
   treating a prior felony or aggravated felony conviction that increases the
          _____________________
          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-50640     Document: 00516698784         Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                    No. 22-50640
                                  c/w No. 22-50641

   statutory maximum under § 1326(b) as a sentencing factor, rather than a
   separate element of the offense, violates the Constitution. While Lux-Tum’s
   16-month term of imprisonment was within the otherwise applicable
   statutory maximum in § 1326(a), he complains that his three-year term of
   supervised release exceeds the one-year statutory maximum that applies
   without a § 1326(b) enhancement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a), 3583(b). He has
   filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief
   explaining that he has raised the issue only to preserve it for further review
   and correctly conceding that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
   v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d
   546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Lux-Tum does not challenge or make any
   arguments regarding the consolidated appeal from his supervised release
   revocation proceeding.
          Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Lux-Tum’s motion is
   GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             2