USA v. Jesus Castro-Ramirez, No. 18-51083 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-51083 Document: 00515076596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-51083 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED August 14, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JESUS ALBERTO CASTRO-RAMIREZ, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:18-CR-2328-1 Before OWEN, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Alberto Castro-Ramirez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He asserts that the indictment did not allege the sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) and, therefore, his two-year supervised release sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence authorized under § 1326(a) and violates his due process rights. He concedes that the argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-51083 Document: 00515076596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2019 No. 18-51083 States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but states that he seeks to preserve the issue for possible further review because subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider the issue. In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239-47, the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 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, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, Castro-Ramirez’s argument is foreclosed, and summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time 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.
