eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-10

United States v. Ramirez-Hidrogo ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 21-50217     Document: 00516052635         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 13, 2021
No. 21-50217
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                              Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christian Xavier Ramirez-Hidrogo,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-476-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christian Xavier Ramirez-Hidrogo appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry, arguing only that the
enhancement of his sentence pursuant to
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b)(1) is
unconstitutional because the fact of a prior conviction must be charged and
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 21-50217      Document: 00516052635              Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/13/2021
No. 21-50217
proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges that this
argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998), but he wishes to preserve the issue for further review.             The
Government has moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an
extension of time to file a brief.
Almendarez-Torres held that a prior conviction is not a fact that must
be alleged in an indictment or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury for
purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement.
    523 U.S. at 239-47
    . This
court has concluded that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not
overrule Almendarez-Torres. See, e.g., United States v. Wallace,
    759 F.3d 486
    ,
497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,
    492 F.3d 624
    , 625-26
(5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Ramirez-Hidrogo’s concession of foreclosure
is correct, and summary judgment is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc.
v. Davis,
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is
DENIED AS MOOT, and the district court’s judgments are
AFFIRMED.
2