U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2024

United States v. Valdez-Sandoval

United States v. Valdez-Sandoval
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 27, 2024

United States v. Valdez-Sandoval

Opinion

Case: 23-50679 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024

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

No. 23-50679 FILED February 27, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Victor Valdez-Sandoval, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-226-1 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Victor Valdez-Sandoval appeals his 21-month, within-guidelines range sentence for illegal entry following deportation, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(1), contending that the sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because he was subject to an enhanced ten-year statutory maximum sentence based on a fact—his prior conviction for a felony _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50679 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2024

No. 23-50679

offense—that was neither pleaded in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by him in pleading guilty. Valdez- Sandoval concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and that he seeks only to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. Accordingly, he moves for summary disposition. The Government does not oppose the motion.

The parties are correct that Valdez-Sandoval’s argument is clearly foreclosed by 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). Therefore, “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), and summary disposition is proper. Accordingly, Valdez-Sandoval’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

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