United States v. Nunez-Ugarte ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-50080     Document: 00515936434         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/13/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 13, 2021
    No. 21-50080                    Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                       Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Genaro Alberto Nunez-Ugarte,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:20-CR-338-1
    Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam: *
    Genaro Alberto Nunez-Ugarte appeals the 37-month prison sentence
    imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after
    deportation.    He argues that his sentence was imposed under an
    unconstitutional statute, 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b). He correctly concedes that his
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50080      Document: 00515936434          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/13/2021
    No. 21-50080
    argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998), but raises the issue to preserve for further possible review. 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).
    The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
    affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief.
    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, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time
    to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.
    2