U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2020

United States v. Reyes-Cardona

United States v. Reyes-Cardona
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided December 22, 2020

United States v. Reyes-Cardona

Opinion

Case: 20-50460 Document: 00515683046 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2020

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-50460 December 22, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Hector Reyes-Cardona, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:19-CR-2829-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Hector Reyes-Cardona appeals his sentence of 21 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that the recidivism enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-50460 Document: 00515683046 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2020

No. 20-50460

unconstitutional because it allows 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 concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, asserting that Reyes-Cardona’s argument is foreclosed.

The parties are correct that Reyes-Cardona’s assertion is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.