USA v. Pascual-Mendez, No. 21-50434 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-50434 Document: 00516128140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 13, 2021 No. 21-50434 consolidated with No. 21-50435 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Andres Pascual-Mendez, Defendant—Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-317-1 USDC No. 4:20-CR-562-1 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Andres Pascual-Mendez appeals his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), along with the revocation of the term of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-50434 Document: 00516128140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2021 No. 21-50434 c/w No. 21-50435 supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. Because his appellate brief does not address the validity of the revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). For the first time on appeal, Pascual-Mendez contends that it violates the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum under § 1326(b)(2) as a sentencing factor, rather than an element of the offense. He correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. As the Government asserts and as Pascual-Mendez concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time 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.
