USA v. Domingo-Morales, No. 20-50762 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-50762 Document: 00515765186 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 3, 2021 No. 20-50762 consolidated with No. 20-50768 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Antonio Domingo-Morales, Defendant—Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-185-1 USDC No. 4:20-CR-247-1 Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Appealing the judgments in two criminal cases, Antonio DomingoMorales challenges his within-guidelines sentence of 21 months of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-50762 Document: 00515765186 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2021 No. 20-50762 c/w No. 20-50768 imprisonment and three years of supervised release for illegal reentry. As the sole issue on appeal, he asserts that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) is unconstitutional because the enhancement is based on facts neither alleged in his indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance arguing 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 Domingo-Morales concedes, this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 23947 (1998). 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). Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Although the appeals of Domingo-Morales’s illegal reentry conviction and supervised release revocation were consolidated, he does not address the revocation in his appellate brief. Consequently, he has abandoned any challenge to the revocation or revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 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 judgments of the district court are 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.
