USA v. Rosalio Garcia, No. 17-50744 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-50744 Document: 00514571166 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-50744 Summary Calendar FILED July 25, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROSALIO AGUNDIS GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:16-CR-1297-1 Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rosalio Agundis Garcia 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). He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed by § 1326(a). Specifically, Agundis Garcia argues 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-50744 Document: 00514571166 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2018 No. 17-50744 that a prior conviction that enhances a sentence under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury. He correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief. Because Agundis Garcia’s argument is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, 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 as moot. 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.
