United States v. Jose Mendez

544 F. App'x 554
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 7, 2013
Docket13-40268
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 544 F. App'x 554 (United States v. Jose Mendez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jose Mendez, 544 F. App'x 554 (5th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Antelmo Mendez pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months of imprisonment. Represented by the Federal Public Defender, Mendez raises two arguments, in *555 order to preserve the issues for further review, that he correctly concedes are foreclosed by circuit precedent.

Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 580 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2848, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the Government was not required to charge in the indictment the predicate facts for the ACCA enhancement and either have Mendez admit those facts or have those facts proven to a jury. See United States v. White, 465 F.3d 250, 254 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 (5th Cir.2002). “ ‘[Neither the [ACCA] nor the Constitution requires a jury finding on the existence of the three previous felony convictions required for the enhancement.’ ” White, 465 F.3d at 254 (quoting Stone, 306 F.3d at 243). Likewise, Mendez’s Commerce Clause challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed, and “ ‘the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question.’ ” United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001) (quoting Untied States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.1999)).

The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mendez v. United States
134 S. Ct. 1524 (Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
544 F. App'x 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-mendez-ca5-2013.