Miguel Ramirez-Baeza appeals his within-guidelines sentence of sixteen months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry into the United States. He contends that the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) recidivism enhancement is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
As Ramirez-Baeza concedes, this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). 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). Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the governments motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
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FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.