USA v. Garza-Limones, No. 21-10492 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10492 Document: 00516141809 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 22, 2021 No. 21-10492 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Edgar Garza-Limones, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-352-1 Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Edgar Garza-Limones appeals his sentence of 72 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 was sentenced under § 1326(b), which allows for a sentence above the * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-10492 Document: 00516141809 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 No. 21-10492 otherwise applicable statutory maximum under § 1326(a), provided that the defendant was removed after sustaining a conviction for certain offenses. See also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) (providing for increased maximum term of supervised release). Garza-Limones contends that because the indictment did not allege such a prior conviction, he was charged only under § 1326(a) and that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum punishment for such an offense. He 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 has moved for summary affirmance, asserting that Garza-Limones’s argument is foreclosed. Garza-Limones’s argument is indeed foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres. 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 motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
