USA v. Benedicto Martinez-Sario, No. 20-50370 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-50370 Document: 00515629731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 6, 2020 No. 20-50370 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Benedicto Martinez-Sario, also known as Benedicto SarioMartinez, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-92-1 Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Benedicto Martinez-Sario appeals his sentence of 14 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release following his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He contends that * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-50370 Document: 00515629731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2020 No. 20-50370 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum, based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Martinez-Sario acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court held in Almendarez-Torres that, for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. at 239-47. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule 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). Thus, MartinezSario is correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot. 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.
