USA v. Jaime-Guzman, No. 21-10432 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10432 Document: 00516079322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 21-10432 Summary Calendar November 3, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Juan Jaime-Guzman, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:20-CR-40-1 Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Juan Jaime-Guzman appeals his 36-month above-guidelines prison term imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court erred in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment in excess of two * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-10432 Document: 00516079322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 No. 21-10432 years and to a term of supervised release in excess of one year. As subsidiary issues, he argues that under the principles articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because Congress intended the enhancements to be sentencing factors, not elements of separate offenses, and that his guilty plea was involuntary and taken in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because he was not admonished that the prior felony provision of § 1326(b)(1) stated an essential offense element. He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he seeks to preserve these issues for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance agreeing that these issues are foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. As the Government argues, and Jaime-Guzman concedes, the issues raised on appeal are 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). Because the issues are 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.
