USA v. Eduardo Resendiz-Rico, No. 19-51177 (5th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-51177 Document: 00515550701 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-51177 Summary Calendar September 2, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Eduardo Resendiz-Rico, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:19-CR-1913-1 Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Eduardo Resendiz-Rico appeals the below-guidelines, 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional sentencing * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-51177 Document: 00515550701 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2020 No. 19-51177 provision because § 1326(b) permits a defendant’s sentence to be enhanced even if the fact of a prior conviction is not alleged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He correctly concedes that his claim is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further possible review. 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). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue 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, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT, 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.