USA v. Roberto Martinez-Mendoza, No. 19-10015 (5th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-10015 Document: 00515070714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-10015 Summary Calendar FILED August 9, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERTO CARLOS MARTINEZ-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-186-1 Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roberto Carlos Martinez-Mendoza appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence of 30 months of imprisonment for being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation. Martinez-Mendoza contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that his sentence is unconstitutional because it exceeds the maximum sentence for the 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a) offense charged in the indictment. He argues his guilty plea was 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-10015 Document: 00515070714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2019 No. 19-10015 invalid because he was not admonished that to trigger a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b)(1), the fact of a prior conviction must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He correctly concedes, however, that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, 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, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief 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.