USA v. Domingo Toribio-Mendoza, No. 20-50389 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-50387 Document: 00515677997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-50387 Summary Calendar December 17, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Domingo Toribio-Mendoza, Defendant—Appellant, consolidated with _____________ No. 20-50389 _____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Domingo Toribio-Mendoza, also known as Domingo ToribioMeondoza, also known as Ramon Torbio-Mendoza, also known as Ramon Mendoza, also known as Domingo Mendoza-Toribio, Defendant—Appellant. Case: 20-50387 Document: 00515677997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 No. 20-50387 c/w No. 20-50389 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-162-1 USDC No. 4:19-CR-904-1 Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Domingo Toribio Mendoza appeals his sentence of 16 months in prison 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 also appeals from the judgment revoking his supervised release. Toribio-Mendoza contends that the recidivism enhancement under § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum of two years of imprisonment and one year of supervised release, see § 1326(a); 18 U.S.C.§§ 3559(a)(5), 3583(b)(3), based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves, unopposed, for summary affirmance, asserting that Toribio-Mendoza’s argument is foreclosed. The parties are correct that Toribio-Mendoza’s assertion is foreclosed by 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). Further, Toribio-Mendoza has abandoned a challenge to the revocation of his supervised release by failing to brief an argument as to the revocation. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2010). * 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 Case: 20-50387 Document: 00515677997 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 No. 20-50387 c/w No. 20-50389 Accordingly, the 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 judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 3
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.
