Case: 21-10432 Document: 00516079322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-10432
FILED
November 3, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Jaime-Guzman,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:20-CR-40-1
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Jaime-Guzman appeals his 36-month above-guidelines prison
term imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal from
the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district
court erred in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment in excess of two
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10432 Document: 00516079322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2021
No. 21-10432
years and to a term of supervised release in excess of one year. As subsidiary
issues, he argues that under the principles articulated in Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because Congress
intended the enhancements to be sentencing factors, not elements of separate
offenses, and that his guilty plea was involuntary and taken in violation of
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.
He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.
United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he seeks to preserve these
issues for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for
summary affirmance agreeing that these issues are foreclosed and, in the
alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.
As the Government argues, and Jaime-Guzman concedes, the issues
raised on appeal are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See 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). Because the issues are foreclosed,
summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406
F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is
DENIED.
2