USA v. Santos Alonso-Martinez, No. 19-50094 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-50094 Document: 00515097055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-50094 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 29, 2019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. SANTOS ALONSO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:18-CR-93-1 Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Santos Alonso-Martinez appeals the 48-month above-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1), which increased the maximum term of imprisonment to ten years of imprisonment, is unconstitutional because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-50094 Document: 00515097055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2019 No. 19-50094 factor rather than as an element of a separate offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue whether a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres 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. 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 an 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) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Alonso-Martinez’s argument is foreclosed. 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.
