United States v. Montoya-Velazquez

Case: 21-50516 Document: 00516163627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022

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

Fifth Circuit FILED

January 12, 2022

No. 21-50516

Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Luis Ernesto Montoya-Velasquez,

Defendant—Appellant, consolidated with _____________ No. 21-50534 _____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Luis Ernesto Montoya-Velazquez,

Defendant—Appellant. Case: 21-50516 Document: 00516163627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022

No. 21-50516 c/w No. 21-50534 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-722-1 USDC No. 4:21-CR-49-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Luis Ernesto Montoya-Velasquez appeals his conviction and sentence under 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 offense. Because his appellate brief does not address the validity of the revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Montoya-Velasquez contends that it violates the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum under § 1326(b)(2) as a sentencing factor, rather than an element of the offense. He correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

As the Government asserts and as Montoya-Velasquez concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-

Case: 21-50516 Document: 00516163627 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2022

No. 21-50516 c/w No. 21-50534

Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the Government’s position “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), summary affirmance is proper.

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.