Court Opinion

ID: 9365413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 01:00:23.898409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:45.516342
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50174   Document: 00516619724   Page: 1   Date Filed: 01/23/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                            No. 22-50174
                                                                 FILED
                                                           January 23, 2023
                          Summary Calendar
                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                 Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Andres Abrahan Vazquez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-50177
                          _____________

   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Andres Abraham Hernandez-Vasquez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-50174          Document: 00516619724              Page: 2       Date Filed: 01/23/2023

                                           No. 22-50174
                                         c/w No. 22-50177

                      Appeals from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                       USDC Nos. 4:21-CR-942-1, 4:21-CR-1017-1

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Andres Abrahan Vazquez 1 appeals the sentence imposed after his
   guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after having previously been
   deported, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), along with the
   revocation of the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the
   instant offense. Because his appellate brief does not address the validity of
   the revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that
   order. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
          Vazquez contends, for the first time on appeal, that it violates the
   Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum
   under § 1326(b) as a sentencing factor, rather than as an element of the
   offense. Vazquez concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
   v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for
   future review. In addition, he has filed an unopposed motion for summary
   disposition.
          As Vazquez concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by
   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). Because
   his position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
          1
            The official case caption in No. 22-50177 identifies the defendant-appellant as
   Andres Abraham Hernandez-Vasquez. We use the name “Vazquez” throughout this
   opinion.

                                                  2
Case: 22-50174     Document: 00516619724         Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/23/2023

                                   No. 22-50174
                                 c/w No. 22-50177
   substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc.
   v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary disposition is proper.
   Accordingly, Vazquez’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED,
   and the judgment of the district court and order revoking supervised release
   are AFFIRMED.

                                         3