USA v. Chacon-Gonzalez, No. 23-10531 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-10531 Document: 00516982109 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-10531 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED November 28, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Hector Daniel Chacon-Gonzalez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-14-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Hector Daniel Chacon-Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Renewing an argument made before the district court, Chacon-Gonzales challenges the application of the enhanced penalty _____________________ * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 23-10531 Document: 00516982109 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 No. 23-10531 range in § 1326(b) as unconstitutional because it permits a defendant to be sentenced above the statutory maximum of § 1326(a) based on the fact of a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As he correctly concedes, 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). He raises the issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, requesting an extension of time to file a brief. Because summary affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT. 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.