USA v. Medina-Rios, No. 21-50725 (5th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 21-50725 Document: 00516166371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 13, 2022 No. 21-50725 consolidated with No. 21-50728 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Alejandro Medina-Rios, Defendant—Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-224-1 USDC No. 4:15-CR-371-1 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-50725 Document: 00516166371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2022 No. 21-50725 c/w No. 21-50728 Alejandro Medina-Rios appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), along with the revocation of the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. He has not briefed the validity of the revocation of his supervised release or his revocation sentence and has, therefore, abandoned any challenge to them. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2010). For the first time on appeal, Medina-Rios contends that the enhancement of his illegal reentry sentence pursuant to § 1326(b) was unconstitutional because the fact of his prior conviction was not charged in his indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief explaining that he has raised this issue only to preserve it for further review and conceding correctly that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Medina-Rios’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment 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.