Case: 21-50371 Document: 00516000275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/31/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 31, 2021 No. 21-50371 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Oscar Alexander Murillo-Portales, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:20-CR-1412-1

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Oscar Alexander Murillo-Portales appeals his sentence to 21 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He contends that the recidivism enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-50371 Document: 00516000275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/31/2021

No. 21-50371

because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Murillo-Portales acknowledges 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 response, the Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief.

We have held that 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. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda- Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, the parties are correct that Murillo-Portales’s argument is foreclosed, and summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.