USA v. Reyes-Tafolla, No. 24-10719 (5th Cir. 2025)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 24-10719 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-10719 Summary Calendar ____________ January 28, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Julio Cesar Reyes-Tafolla, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-CR-113-1 ______________________________ Before Haynes, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Julio Cesar Reyes-Tafolla appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwiseapplicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), based on facts that _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10719 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2025 No. 24-10719 are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Reyes-Tafolla acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Reyes-Tafolla is correct that his argument is foreclosed. 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 appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, 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 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.
