USA v. Ramiro Ortiz-Membreno, No. 17-50711 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-50711 Document: 00514348987 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-50711 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 15, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAMIRO ORTIZ-MEMBRENO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:16-CR-536-1 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ramiro Ortiz-Membreno appeals the 37-month sentence imposed after his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Ortiz-Membreno contends that his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction and, therefore, his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) violated due process by exceeding the two-year statutory maximum provided by Section 1326(a). He acknowledges that his argument 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 17-50711 Document: 00514348987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2018 No. 17-50711 States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve his claim for possible future review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate when, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case[.]” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162–63 (5th Cir. 1969). As Ortiz-Membreno concedes, his sole claim is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres. The Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
