USA v. Martinez-Figueroa, No. 20-10647 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-10647 Document: 00515682415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-10647 Summary Calendar December 22, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Miguel Martinez-Figueroa, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-339-1 Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Miguel Martinez-Figueroa appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior conviction * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-10647 Document: 00515682415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2020 No. 20-10647 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which increased the statutory maximum term of imprisonment to 20 years and the statutory maximum term of supervised release to three years, is unconstitutional because his prior conviction is treated as a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He correctly concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. 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, see United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2008), 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.
