USA v. Santiago-Razo, No. 21-50505 (5th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-50505 Document: 00516089687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-50505 Summary Calendar FILED November 10, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jose Antonio Santiago-Razo, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-582-1 Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jose Antonio Santiago-Razo appeals his conviction and sentence for entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). For the first time on appeal, Santiago-Razo contends that it violates the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum under * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-50505 Document: 00516089687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2021 No. 21-50505 Section 1326(b)(2) as a sentencing factor, rather than as an element of the offense. He 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. 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,” summary affirmance is proper. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The 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 is DENIED as unnecessary. 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.