United States v. Omero Nino-Guerrero
This text of United States v. Omero Nino-Guerrero (United States v. Omero Nino-Guerrero) 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.
Opinion
Case: 19-10994 Document: 00515398684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
No. 19-10994 Fifth Circuit
FILED Summary Calendar April 29, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
OMERO NINO-GUERRERO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:19-CR-41-1
Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Omero Nino-Guerrero appeals the 21-month term of imprisonment and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). According to Nino-Guerrero, § 1326(b)’s enhanced penalty provisions for prior convictions are unconstitutional to the extent prior convictions are treated as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be alleged
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 19-10994 Document: 00515398684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2020
No. 19-10994
in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Nino- Guerrero correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further possible review. 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). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue is 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, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Omero Nino-Guerrero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-omero-nino-guerrero-ca5-2020.