USA v. Carlos Meza-Cruz, No. 19-50931 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-50931 Document: 00515422126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-50931 Summary Calendar FILED May 19, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CARLOS MEZA-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant ******************************************************** Consolidated with 19-50941 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CARLOS MEZA-CRUZ, also known as Carlos Meza Cruz, also known as Carlos Meza-Ruiz, also known as Jesus Meza, also known as Carlos Mesa-Cruz, also known as Carlos Cruz Mesa, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-527-1 USDC No. 4:19-CR-263-1 Case: 19-50931 Document: 00515422126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2020 No. 19-50931 c/w No. 19-50941 Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Meza-Cruz appeals his 70-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals the concomitant revocation of his supervised release related to his prior convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(D), possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of § 841(b)(1)(D), and illegal reentry of a removed alien, in violation of § 1326. Raising one issue on appeal, Meza-Cruz argues that his new illegal reentry sentence, imposed under § 1326(b)(2), violates his due process rights by exceeding the two-year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a) because the indictment did not allege a prior conviction necessary for the § 1326(b)(2) enhancement. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. As the Government argues, and Meza-Cruz concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by 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). Because the issue is foreclosed, summary 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. * 2 Case: 19-50931 Document: 00515422126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2020 No. 19-50931 c/w No. 19-50941 affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Although the appeals of Meza-Cruz’s illegal reentry conviction and supervised release revocation were consolidated, he does not address the revocation in his appellate brief. Consequently, he has abandoned any challenge to the revocation or revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 3
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.
