U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2023

United States v. Eguis-Portillo

United States v. Eguis-Portillo
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 5, 2023

United States v. Eguis-Portillo

Opinion

Case: 22-50899 Document: 00516701788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50899 consolidated with FILED No. 22-50913 April 5, 2023 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce _____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jose Manuel Eguis-Portillo, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:22-CR-358-1, 4:18-CR-37-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Jose Manuel Eguis-Portillo appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), as well as the judgment revoking his term of supervised release for a prior offense. He has not briefed, and has therefore abandoned, any challenge to _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 22-50899 Document: 00516701788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2023

No. 22-50899 c/w No. 22-50913 the revocation of supervised release or his revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).

For the first time on appeal, Eguis-Portillo contends that Section 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows for 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 has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief explaining that he raises this issue only to preserve it for further review and conceding correctly that it is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019). The motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.

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