United States v. Chairez-Medina

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50623
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO RODOLFO CHAIREZ-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant

Consolidated with 19-50624

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO RODOLFO CHAIREZ-MEDINA, also known as Mario Rodolfo
Chairez-Medina, also known as Rodolfo Chairez-Medina, also known as Juan
Carlos Garcia, also known as Juan Carlos Martinez-Garcia, also known as
Rodolfo Mario Chairez-Medina, also known as Mario Rodolfo Medina-Chairez,
also known as Rodolfo Mario Medina-Chairez, also known as Mario Rodolfo
Medina, also known as Mario Rodolfo Chairez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-225-1
USDC No. 4:18-CR-795-1

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50623 Document: 00515328788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2020

No. 19-50623
c/w No. 19-50624
2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Mario Rodolfo Chairez-Medina appeals from a judgment revoking his
previously-imposed supervised release and a judgment of conviction on his
guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that
the enhancement of his sentence based on his prior conviction pursuant to
§ 1326(b)(2), which increased the statutory maximum term of imprisonment to
20 years for his illegal reentry offense, is unconstitutional because his prior
conviction is treated as a sentencing factor rather than an element of the
offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent decisions
indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in Almendarez-
Torres. The Government moves for summary affirmance, urging that Chairez’s
argument is foreclosed.
The parties are correct that Chairez’s argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir.
2014); United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the
Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is
DENIED AS MOOT, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-50623 Document: 00515328788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2020