United States v. Lopez-Canales

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50049
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Juan Lopez-Canales, also known as Juan Manuel Lopez-
Canales,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-511-1

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Lopez-Canales appeals his sentence of 24 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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
October 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-50049 Document: 00515586557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2020

No. 20-50049
2
8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence based on
his prior convictions pursuant to § 1326(b), which increased the statutory
maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release, is unconstitutional
because his prior convictions are treated as sentencing factors rather than
elements of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and 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 (1998), but he seeks to
preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for summary
affirmance, asserting that Lopez-Canales’s argument is foreclosed.
The parties are correct that Lopez-Canales’s assertion is foreclosed
by Almendarez-Torres. 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).
Accordingly, 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.
Case: 20-50049 Document: 00515586557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2020