USA v. Ivan Minjarez-Molina, No. 20-50613 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-50612 Document: 00515674359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-50612 Summary Calendar December 15, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ivan Ignacio Minjarez-Molina, Defendant—Appellant, consolidated with _____________ No. 20-50613 _____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ivan Ignacio Minjarez-Molina, also known as Ivan MinjarezMolina, also known as Ivan I. Minjarez, also known as Ivan Minjarez, also known as Ivan Minjarez Molina, also known as Ivan Ignacio Minjarez, also known as Ivan Ignacio Molina-Minjarez, Defendant—Appellant. Case: 20-50612 Document: 00515674359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 No. 20-50612 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-cr-2-1 Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ivan Ignacio Minjarez-Molina appeals his 30-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea for entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals the concomitant revocation of his supervised release related to his prior conviction for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams of more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and § 846. Raising one issue on appeal, Minjarez-Molina argues that the recidivism enhancement under § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and subsequent decisions because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. As the Government argues, and Minjarez-Molina concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 2 Case: 20-50612 Document: 00515674359 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 No. 20-50612 v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Although the appeals of Minjarez-Molina’s illegal reentry conviction and supervised release revocation were consolidated, he does not address the revocation in his appellate brief. Consequently, he has abandoned any challenge to the revocation or revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 3
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.
