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. Edgar Alonso PINEDA-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgar Alonso Pineda, also known as Edgar Alonso Pineda-Rubio, also known as Roberto Gonzalez-Castillo, also known as Edgar Alonso-Pineda, also known as Edgar Pineda-Pineda, also known as Edgar Alonso Pineda-Pineda, Defendant-Appellant
Edgar Alonso Pineda-Pineda appeals the 48-month sentence imposed on his jury trial conviction for illegal reentry following removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Additionally, he appeals the related revocation of his term of supervised release on an earlier conviction for illegal reentry and his 18-month revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583.
Pineda-Pineda argues that because his indictment did not specify the prior aggravated felony conviction that formed the basis of his sentencing enhancement, his sentence, imposed under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under § 1326(a) and therefore violated his due process rights. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief.
As the Government correctly argues and Pineda-Pineda correctly concedes, the sole issue raised 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).
Pineda-Pineda’s appeal from the revocation of supervised release was consolidated with the instant appeal. But because he has raised no argument with respect to his revocation case, he has abandoned his appeal of the judgment of revocation and of the revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED.
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. 17-51078
Decided: November 26, 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)