UNITED STATES v. VALLES MORALES (2021)

Heriberto Valles-Morales appeals his sentence of 27 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that the recidivism enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, asserting that Valles-Morales's argument is foreclosed.

The parties are correct that Valles-Morales's assertion is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. 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). Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.