Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff−Appellee, v. Alfredo PEREZ-MONTERO, Defendant−Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff−Appellee, v. Alfredo Perez-Montero, Also Known as Jose Luis Alfredo, Also Known as Alfredo Gonzalez-Perez, Also Known as Alfredo Gonzalez, Also Known as Alfredo Perez Montero, Also Known as Alfredo Montemegro, Also Known as Alfredo Perez-Montro, Also Known as Alfredo Perez, Also Known as Alfredo Montero, Also Known as Alfredo Montero-Perez, Also Known as Alfredo Perez-Gonzalez, Also Known as Alberto Reyes Perez, Defendant−Appellant.
Alfredo Perez-Montero appeals his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and his 63-month sentence. He also appeals the revocation of his supervised release related to a conviction for illegal reentry. These appeals are consolidated.
Perez-Montero contends that because his indictment did not specify the felony conviction that formed the basis of his sentencing enhancement, the sentence exceeded the two-year maximum under § 1326(a) and violated his due process rights. Perez-Montero has not raised any issue with the revocation of supervised release. All issues not raised are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224−25 (5th Cir. 1993).
The government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. As the government urges and Perez-Montero concedes, the sole issue on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (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).
The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments are AFFIRMED. The government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED as unnecessary.
FOOTNOTES
PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-50122
Decided: November 20, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)