USA v. Francisco Martinez-Castillo, No. 20-50230 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-50220 Document: 00515674330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 15, 2020 No. 20-50220 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Francisco Martinez-Castillo, Defendant—Appellant, consolidated with _____________ No. 20-50230 _____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Francisco Martinez-Castillo, also known as Francisco Castillo-Martinez, Defendant—Appellant. Case: 20-50220 Document: 00515674330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 No. 20-50220 c/w No. 20-50230 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-181-1 USDC No. 4:19-CR-809-1 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Francisco Martinez-Castillo appeals his sentence of sixteen months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence under § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior conviction, which increased the statutory maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release, 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. Martinez-Castillo 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 further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, urging that Martinez-Castillo’s argument is foreclosed. The parties are correct that Martinez-Castillo’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. 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). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), 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. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 2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.
