United States v. Irvin Lemus Villalobos

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 21-4604
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4604 Doc: 48 Filed: 01/10/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4604

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IRVIN RAUL LEMUS VILLALOBOS, a/k/a Irvin Raul Villalobos-Lemus, a/k/a Irving Raul Lemus Villalobos,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cr-00080-AJT-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2024 Decided: January 10, 2025

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney, Valencia D. Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney, Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Daniel J. Honold, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4604 Doc: 48 Filed: 01/10/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Irvin Raul Lemus Villalobos appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after removal

subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). He argues

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection guarantee

of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, Villalobos maintains that § 1326 was enacted with

a racially discriminatory purpose and has had a discriminatory effect. Villalobos also

argues that the district court erred by imposing supervised release conditions in the written

judgment that were not orally pronounced or explained at sentencing.

The Government moves for summary affirmance in light of our recent decision in

United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 98 F.4th 90 (4th Cir. 2024), in which we sustained the

constitutionality of § 1326 against the same equal protection challenge Villalobos now

raises. The Government contends that Villalobos’s argument is foreclosed by Sanchez-

Garcia and, thus, is “manifestly unsubstantial.” See 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(1). Villalobos does

not fairly dispute that Sanchez-Garcia forecloses his constitutional challenge. He

maintains, however, that the issue is not frivolous, that Sanchez-Garcia was wrongly

decided, and that he should be permitted to press the claim in further litigation. Because

Villalobos’s challenge to § 1326 is foreclosed by our decision in Sanchez-Garcia, we

conclude that summary affirmance is warranted as to that portion of the appeal.

The Government does not attempt to demonstrate that Villalobos’s challenge to his

supervised release conditions is manifestly unsubstantial. The parties agree, however, that

Villalobos’s dispute with his supervised release conditions is now moot. Because

Villalobos has completed his carceral sentence and the district court recently terminated

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4604 Doc: 48 Filed: 01/10/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

his supervised release, his challenge to the terms of his supervision is moot, and we lack

jurisdiction to consider the issue. See United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir.

2018) (discussing mootness).

Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion for summary affirmance in part

and dismiss the appeal in part, insofar as Villalobos challenges his supervised release

conditions. We grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance in part and affirm

the district court’s judgment in all remaining respects. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART