Full text
United States v. Yoni Rayo-Espinoza
Case: 18-10210 Document: 00514673274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-10210 FILED Summary Calendar October 9, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee v.
YONI RAYO-ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17-CR-436-1
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Yoni Rayo-Espinoza appeals the 41-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He concedes that the issue whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
- • Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
— 2 —
Case: 18-10210 Document: 00514673274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2018
No. 18-10210
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue. 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 an 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)). Thus, Rayo-Espinoza’s argument is foreclosed. 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.