Case: 22-50731 Document: 00516603582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50731
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ January 9, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Victor Manuel Palma,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-50735
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Victor Manuel Barrientos-Palma,
Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-50731 Document: 00516603582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2023
No. 22-50731
c/w No. 22-50735
______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC Nos. 4:22-CR-130-1, 4:22-CR-525-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Victor Manuel Palma appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into the
United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
and (b)(1), along with the revocation of the supervised release that he was
serving at the time of the offense. He contends that § 1326(b) is
unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable
statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment
nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Palma does not
address the validity of the revocation of his terms of supervised release or the
sentence imposed upon revocation, he has abandoned any challenge to that
judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Palma moves for summary disposition, correctly conceding that his
challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and explaining that
he merely seeks to preserve the issue for further review. See United States v.
Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019). Because summary disposition
is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969), Palma’s motion is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district
court are AFFIRMED.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2