Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos Amador SARAGOZA-BOTELLO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 20-50786

Decided: February 24, 2021

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff - Appellee Carlos Zaragoza, Federal Public Defender's Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant - Appellant

Carlos Amador Saragoza-Botello appeals his sentence of 46 months in prison and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Saragoza-Botello contends that the recidivism enhancement under § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum of two years of imprisonment and one year of supervised release, see § 1326(a); 18 U.S.C.§§ 3559(a)(5), 3583(b)(3), 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, unopposed, for summary affirmance, asserting that Saragoza-Botello's argument is foreclosed.

The parties are correct that Saragoza-Botello'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 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, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.



Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Copied to clipboard