UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ HERNANDEZ (2018)

Rene Martinez-Hernandez appeals his conviction and 30-month sentence for illegal reentry after removal from the United States. He argues that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum because the enhanced penalty provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He also asserts that his guilty plea was invalid because he was not admonished that his prior felony conviction could not be used to enhance his sentence under § 1326(b) unless it was submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, Martinez-Hernandez has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief conceding that these issues are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and explaining that he has raised the issues only to preserve them for possible further review. Accordingly, because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Martinez-Hernandez’s motion is GRANTED. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.