United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-11248
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMAS MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-168-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Tomas Martinez-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a
deported alien. Because Martinez-Rodriguez’s prior deportation followed his
conviction for a felony, he was subject to an enhanced statutory maximum
sentence of ten years and an enhanced statutory supervised release range of
not more than three years. See 8 U.S.C § 1326(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2).
The district court sentenced him within the guidelines range to ten months of

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 18, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-11248 Document: 00515457511 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2020

No. 19-11248
2
imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. Martinez-
Rodriguez was released from custody in March of 2020 but remains on
supervised release. See United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 355 (5th
Cir. 2006).
In this appeal, Martinez-Rodriguez contends that the district court erred
by sentencing him beyond the statutory maximum permitted by § 1326(a)
based on the fact of a prior felony conviction that was neither pleaded in the
indictment, admitted by him, or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also argues that his guilty plea was invalid because he was not admonished
that the prior-felony provision of § 1326(b)(1) could not be used to enhance his
sentence unless his prior felony conviction was submitted to a jury and proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that these issues are foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to
preserve the issues for future review. The Government moves for summary
affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a merits
brief.
The parties are correct that Martinez-Rodriguez’s arguments are clearly
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492
F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th
Cir. 2014); see generally Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162
(5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is
DENIED. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-11248 Document: 00515457511 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2020