UNITED STATES v. ANCHONDO QUEZADA (2020)

Jesus Manuel Anchondo-Quezada appeals the 30-month, within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal from the United States. He contends that his sentence is unconstitutional because his indictment alleged only those facts sufficient for a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and did not include any allegations of a prior conviction necessary for a sentence enhancement under § 1326(b)(1). Relatedly, he asserts that his guilty plea was involuntary and that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G) because it did not admonish him that the fact of a prior conviction is an essential element of the offense. Thus, Anchondo-Quezada requests that we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing under § 1326(a). He concedes that these arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issues for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance in which it agrees that the issues are foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013)); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). Therefore, Anchondo-Quezada's arguments are foreclosed, and 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, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.