United States
v.
Bernal-Gaitan

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUITNov 7, 2018
No. 18-10326 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2018)

No. 18-10326

11-07-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE LUIS BERNAL-GAITAN, Defendant-Appellant


Summary Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CR-145-1 Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. --------

Jose Luis Bernal-Gaitan appeals the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal. 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 proven to a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United 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. We have 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)). Bernal-Gaitan's argument is thus 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.