Case: 23-50320 Document: 00516994682 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50320 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ December 8, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Luis Fernando Contreras-Juarez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-1240-1 ______________________________ Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Luis Fernando Contreras-Juarez appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise- applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50320 Document: 00516994682 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2023

No. 23-50320

are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Contreras-Juarez acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Accordingly, he has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition.

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. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Contreras-Juarez is, therefore, correct that his argument is foreclosed. Because his position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary disposition is “necessary and proper.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, Contreras-Juarez’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.