Case: 21-50259 Document: 00516027003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 23, 2021
No. 21-50259 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Luis Lara-Zavala,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-511-1
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Luis Lara-Zavala appeals his sentence to 57 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court
imposed on his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that
the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior conviction pursuant to
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50259 Document: 00516027003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2021
No. 21-50259
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because the fact of a prior
conviction must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
While Lara-Zavala acknowledges this argument to be foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless
seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government has moved
for summary affirmance on the ground that Lara-Zavala’s argument is
foreclosed.
The Supreme Court held in Almendarez-Torres that for purposes of a
statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must
be alleged in an indictment or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. 523
U.S. at 239-47. 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, e.g.,
United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v.
Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Lara-Zavala is thus
correct that his argument is foreclosed. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion
for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative
motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2