USA v. Rodriguez -Calderon, No. 20-10813 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-10813 Document: 00515711341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 19, 2021 No. 20-10813 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Pedro Rodriguez -Calderon, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-78-1 Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Pedro Rodriguez-Calderon appeals the 37-month, within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United States. He contends that his sentence is unconstitutional because his indictment alleged only those facts sufficient for * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-10813 Document: 00515711341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2021 No. 20-10813 a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and did not include any allegations of a prior conviction necessary for a sentence enhancement under § 1326(b)(2). He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government has 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 Rodriguez-Calderon 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. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). 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, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 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.
