Court Opinion

ID: 9403404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 00:00:33.011569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.669326
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50853        Document: 00516793100             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                    _____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 22-50853
                                 consolidated with                                    FILED
                                     No. 22-50860                                 June 20, 2023
                                   Summary Calendar                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                   _____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Amado Alvarez-Alvarado,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                    Appeals from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                     USDC Nos. 4:22-CR-235-1, 4:22-CR-417-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Amado Alvarez-Alvarado appeals his conviction and sentence for
   illegal reentry into the United States, as well as the judgment revoking his
   term of supervised release for a prior offense. He has not briefed, and
   therefore has abandoned, any challenge to the revocation of supervised

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50853       Document: 00516793100           Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/20/2023

                                      No. 22-50853
                                    c/w No. 22-50860

   release or his revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
   25 (5th Cir. 1993).
          First, Alvarez-Alvarado argues the district court erred in entering a
   judgment reflecting that his conviction was under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)
   because none of his prior convictions were aggravated felonies. Because he
   did not raise this issue in the district court, our review is limited to plain error.
   See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v.
   Rodriguez-Flores, 25 F.4th 385, 387 (5th Cir. 2022). To show plain error, he
   must demonstrate there is a clear or obvious error that affects his substantial
   rights. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If he makes this showing, we have discretion
   to correct that error but should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the
   fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). The Government agrees that the
   judgment is incorrect and moves to reform the judgment to reflect the correct
   statute of conviction, § 1326(b)(1).
          Alvarez-Alvarado has a 2009 Nevada conviction for attempted
   burglary. The Nevada burglary statute does not require breaking as an
   element of burglary and does not require that the entry be forcible. See State
   v. White, 330 P.3d 482, 485 (Nev. 2014); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.
   § 205.060(1) (2005). Because it does not require the use, attempted use, or
   threatened use of force, it is not a crime of violence under § 1101(a)(43)(F).
   See 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). The Nevada burglary statute also does not require
   unlawful or unprivileged entry and reaches more structures than generic
   burglary. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 205.060(1) (2005). For these
   reasons, it does not constitute generic burglary under § 1101(a)(43)(G) or an
   aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2). See Descamps v. United States, 570
   U.S. 254, 277 (2013) (holding that a very similar California burglary statute
   was non-generic burglary because it did not require breaking and entering);

                                                2
Case: 22-50853       Document: 00516793100         Page: 3     Date Filed: 06/20/2023

                                      No. 22-50853
                                    c/w No. 22-50860

   see also Covarrubias-Sotelo v. Holder, 570 F. App’x 704, 704 (9th Cir. 2014);
   United States v. Hiser, 532 F. App’x 648, 648-49 (9th Cir. 2013).
          Neither of Alvarez-Alvarado’s other felony convictions qualify as
   aggravated felonies under § 1326(b)(2).             Because his conviction for
   unauthorized absence constituting escape does not have as an element the
   use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or
   property of another, see § 16(a), it does not constitute a crime of violence
   under § 1101(a)(43)(F) or an aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2). See
   Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 212.095(1). Given that the attempted burglary
   and unauthorized absence convictions do not constitute aggravated felonies,
   his prior federal conviction for reentry of a removed alien does not constitute
   an aggravated felony.         See § 1101(a)(43)(O).     Therefore, based on a
   straightforward application of the caselaw, the district court’s judgment
   stating that the conviction was under § 1326(b)(2) is plainly erroneous. See
   Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Rodriguez-Flores, 25 F.4th at 390. A conviction under
   § 1326(b)(2) carries collateral consequences because it “is itself an
   aggravated felony, rendering the defendant permanently inadmissible to the
   United States.” United States v. Ovalle-Garcia, 868 F.3d 313, 314 (5th Cir.
   2017) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
   Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. See Rodriguez-
   Flores, 25 F.4th at 390-91.
          Next, Alvarez-Alvarado argues § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because
   it permits a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum
   based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury
   beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to
   preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The Government moves for
   partial summary affirmance on this issue, and in the alternative, an extension
   of time to file an appellate brief.

                                               3
Case: 22-50853      Document: 00516793100          Page: 4     Date Filed: 06/20/2023

                                     No. 22-50853
                                   c/w No. 22-50860

          Summary affirmance is proper where “the position of one of the
   parties is clearly right as a matter of law 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). 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); United States v. Wallace,
   759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, partial summary affirmance is
   appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
          Accordingly, the Government’s motion to reform the judgment is
   DENIED, and its alternative motion to remand the case to reform the
   judgment is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the district court
   for the limited purpose of reforming the judgment to reflect conviction and
   sentencing under § 1326(b)(1).       Further, the Government’s motion for
   partial summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an
   extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. The judgments are otherwise
   AFFIRMED.

                                              4