Case: 20-10148 Document: 00515616336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 26, 2020
No. 20-10148 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Herminio Perales-Perez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-246-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Herminio Perales-Perez appeals his guilty plea conviction for illegal
reentry and the 70-month prison term and three-year supervised release term
that followed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). For the following reasons, we
AFFIRM.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10148 Document: 00515616336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2020
No. 20-10148
We reject Perales-Perez’s assertion that the sentence imposed is
substantively unreasonable because his argument is purely conclusory,
unsupported by record citations, and essentially unbriefed. Although
Perales-Perez contends that the sentence and the reasons given for it fail to
consider and give significant weight to mitigating factors, he does not identify
any such factors. We will not search the record to find support for Perales-
Perez’s counseled brief. See Nicholas Acoustics & Specialty Co. v. H & M
Const. Co., 695 F.2d 839, 846–47 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(8)(A). “Inadequately briefed issues are deemed abandoned.” United
States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 244 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v.
Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 286 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, Perales-Perez’s one-line contention
that the district court relied solely, and thus improperly, on his criminal
history is deemed abandoned because it is conclusory and is merely
mentioned in passing without being developed into an argument. See Stevens,
487 F.3d at 242 n.1; Cothran, 302 F.3d at 286 n.7. We do not liberally
construe a counseled brief. Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 792 (5th Cir.
2010).
Perales-Perez also contends that it was error to sentence him to a term
of imprisonment greater than two years and a term of supervised release
longer than one year for a violation of § 1326. He states that this issue raises
subsidiary issues, the first being whether the statutory enhancement
provisions in § 1326(b) are unconstitutional because Congress unequivocally
intended the enhancements to be sentencing factors, not elements of separate
offenses. The second subsidiary issue is whether his guilty plea was
involuntary and violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because he
was not admonished that the prior felony provision of § 1326(b)(1) stated an
essential offense element that he had the right to have the government prove,
and a jury find, beyond a reasonable doubt. Perales-Perez concedes that any
2
Case: 20-10148 Document: 00515616336 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2020
No. 20-10148
relief in connection with these issues is foreclosed under Almendarez-Torres
v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226–27 (1998). He nevertheless raises them
to preserve them for further review.
AFFIRMED.
3