eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-05

United States v. Holguin ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-51090         Document: 00516732786             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________                               United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-51090                                   May 1, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alejandro Holguin,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-571-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Alejandro Holguin appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for
illegal reentry after removal in violation of
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a) and (b)(2). He
argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional
because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory
maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that are neither alleged in
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51090     Document: 00516732786           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-51090
the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Holguin
acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States,
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme
Court review. Accordingly, he has filed an unopposed motion for summary
disposition.
We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as
Alleyne v. United States,
    570 U.S. 99
     (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey,
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v.
Pervis,
    937 F.3d 546
    , 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Holguin is, therefore, correct
that his argument is foreclosed. Because his position “is clearly right as a
matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome
of the case,” summary disposition is proper. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, Holguin’s motion for summary disposition is
GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2