eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2022-05

United States v. Islas-Macias ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 21-51001    Document: 00516326440       Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/19/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
No. 21-51001
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ulises Ervey Islas-Macias,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 21-51026
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ervey Ulises Islas-Macias,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
Case: 21-51001      Document: 00516326440           Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/19/2022
No. 21-51001
c/w No. 21-51026
USDC No. 4:21-CR-486-1
USDC No. 7:18-CR-247-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ulises Ervey Islas-Macias appeals his conviction and sentence for
reentry after deportation under
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a) and (b)(1), along with the
revocation of the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the
offense. Because he does not address the validity of the revocation of his
supervised release or his revocation sentence, he has abandoned any
challenge to that judgment. See United States v. Reagan,
    596 F.3d 251
    , 254-
55 (5th Cir. 2010).
Islas-Macias argues that treating a prior felony or aggravated felony
conviction that increases the statutory maximum under Section 1326(b) as a
sentencing factor, rather than a separate element of the offense, violates the
Constitution. He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition
and a letter brief explaining that he has raised the issue only to preserve it for
further review and correctly conceding that his argument 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).          Summary disposition is
appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969). Islas-Macias’s motion is GRANTED, and the judgments of the
district court are AFFIRMED.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
2