UNITED STATES v. MORENO HERRERA (2021)

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Heliodoro Moreno-Herrera challenges his sentence of 16 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for illegal reentry. As the sole issue on appeal, he argues that the enhancement of his maximum sentence (which permitted the higher term of supervised release he received) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because the enhancement is based on facts neither alleged in his indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance arguing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

As the Government argues, and Moreno-Herrera concedes, this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47, 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. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, 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, the Government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, 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Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.