eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-07

United States v. Tomas Vargas-Torres ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 19-51148      Document: 00515486899         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/13/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT    United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-51148                              July 13, 2020
Summary Calendar                           Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
TOMAS VARGAS-TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CR-2677-1
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Tomas Vargas-Torres appeals the 30-month, within-guidelines prison
term imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the
United States after removal. Vargas-Torres argues that under the principles
articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey,
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), and Alleyne v.
United States,
    570 U.S. 99
     (2013),
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b) is unconstitutional
because it permits a sentence above the statutory maximum in § 1326(a) based
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-51148   Document: 00515486899     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/13/2020
No. 19-51148
on the fact of a prior felony conviction not alleged in the indictment nor found
by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government has filed an unopposed
motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time
to file its brief.
As the Government argues and as Vargas-Torres concedes, this issue is
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998). See
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). Because the issue is
foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v.
Davis,
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative
motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED.
2