USA v. Millan-Padilla, No. 22-50346 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-50346 Document: 00516611692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50346 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED January 16, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Isidoro Millan-Padilla, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-1051-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Isidoro Millan-Padilla appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal entry into the United States after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). For the first time on appeal, Millan-Padilla contends that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-50346 Document: 00516611692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2023 No. 22-50346 by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Millan-Padilla acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. In addition, Millan-Padilla has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Millan-Padilla is correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Millan-Padilla’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment 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.