USA v. Quezada-Lara, No. 22-10784 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-10784 Document: 00516690436 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 22-10784 Summary Calendar ____________ March 27, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Juan Victor Quezada-Lara, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CR-105-1 ______________________________ Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Juan Victor Quezada-Lara pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following removal and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 30 months in prison. He asserts that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum term of imprisonment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and contends that his indictment did not allege an offense punishable pursuant to § 1326(b) because it failed to _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-10784 Document: 00516690436 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2023 No. 22-10784 identify a prior conviction. He suggests that his sentence violates due process because § 1326(b) permits the imposition of a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Quezada-Lara concedes that his claim is foreclosed and states that he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. The parties are correct that the issue raised on appeal 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). Thus, 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, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, 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.
