UNITED STATES v. PARRA ROBLES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-09-16No. No. 21-50233

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's judgment was affirmed, and the government's motion for summary affirmance was granted because the defendant's constitutional challenge to his sentence was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States.

Primitivo Parra-Robles challenged his 48-month prison sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following prior removal. He argued that his indictment was constitutionally defective because it failed to allege the prior conviction necessary to support a sentence enhancement under federal law, rather than only alleging the base offense facts.

Parra-Robles acknowledged that controlling precedent from Almendarez-Torres v. United States foreclosed his argument, and both he and the government agreed on this point. The government requested summary affirmance without full briefing. The court found the argument was indeed barred by existing law and granted the government's motion.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an indictment must allege facts supporting a sentencing enhancement for prior convictions in illegal reentry cases
Application of Almendarez-Torres precedent to § 1326(b)(2) enhancements

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed his 48-month sentence imposed after a guilty plea to illegal reentry, and the government moved for summary affirmance.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Primitivo Parra-Robles appeals the 48-month, above-guidelines sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United States. He contends that his sentence is 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 the § 1326(b)(2) enhancement.

He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government agrees and has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, and in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

The parties are correct that the sole issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. 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, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Governments alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT.

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.