Case: 13-51042 Document: 00512763754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-51042 September 10, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CEASAR LIMON-PACIAS, also known as Cesar Limon-Pasillas, also known
as Cesor Limon P., also known as Pacias Ceaser Limon, also known as Jesus
Culler, also known as Jesus J. Carreron, also known as Cesar P. Limon, also
known as Cesar Pasillas-Limon, also known as Jesus Montalvo-Cuellar, also
known as Cesar Ivan, also known as Cesar Limon, also known as Cesar Pasilla,
also known as Jose Rivera, also known as Jesus Carreon, also known as Jesus
Cuellar Montalvo, also known as Jose Culler, also known as Cesar Limon P.,
also known as Cesar Limon-Pacias,,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:13-CR-356-1
Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 13-51042 Document: 00512763754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2014
No. 13-51042
Ceasar Limon-Pacias appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-
plea conviction of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States
without permission, following removal. He contends that his sentence violates
due process because it was enhanced under § 1326(b)(2) based on a prior
conviction that was not charged in the indictment. Limon-Pacias
acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision
in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but raises
the issue to preserve it for further review. He contends that the Supreme Court
is likely to revisit its decision, which has been cast into doubt by Alleyne v.
United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000).
In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that § 1326(b)(2)’s
enhancement provision was a sentencing factor and not a separate criminal
offense which must be alleged in the indictment and submitted to a jury to be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235.
Although the Supreme Court has expressed some doubt as to whether
Almendarez-Torres was correctly decided, it has declined to revisit that
decision. See Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160 n.1; Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90.
Because Almendarez-Torres remains binding precedent, Limon-Pacias’s
argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Wallace, No. 12-51192, ___ F.3d
___, 2014 WL 3558003, at 9-10 (5th Cir. July 18, 2014); United States v. Pineda-
Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2