USA v. Juan Lopez-Canales, No. 20-50049 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-50049 Document: 00515586557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 1, 2020 No. 20-50049 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Juan Lopez-Canales, also known as Juan Manuel LopezCanales, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-511-1 Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Juan Lopez-Canales appeals his sentence of 24 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-50049 Document: 00515586557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 No. 20-50049 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence based on his prior convictions pursuant to § 1326(b), which increased the statutory maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release, is unconstitutional because his prior convictions are treated as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, asserting that Lopez-Canales’s argument is foreclosed. The parties are correct that Lopez-Canales’s assertion is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, summary affirmance is GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), 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. 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.
