United States v. Anchondo-Quezada

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10552
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jesus Manuel Anchondo-Quezada, also known as Jesus
Gomez-Gomez, also known as Jesus Manuel Anchando-
Quezada,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-25-1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
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

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-10552 Document: 00515668928 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2020

No. 20-10552
2
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 (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, 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 (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 (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.
Case: 20-10552 Document: 00515668928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2020