USA v. Eric Correa-Cambron, No. 17-10369 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-10369 Document: 00514385698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10369 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 14, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. ERIC DANIEL CORREA-CAMBRON, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16-CR-17-1 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eric Daniel Correa-Cambron appeals the 46-month within-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed by § 1326(a). He concedes that the issue of whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-10369 Document: 00514385698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 No. 17-10369 be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue. 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). In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. at 239-47. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 62526 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, Correa-Cambron’s argument is foreclosed. In light of the foregoing, 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.
