United States v. Oscar Campos-Lagunas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 2020
• Docket: 19-50707
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-50707 Document: 00515302062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED February 7, 2020 No. 19-50707 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR CAMPOS-LAGUNAS, also known as Jose Lopez-Lomali, also known as Carlos Ortiz, also known as Orbelin Lagunas Campos, also known as Orbelin Campos Lagunas, also known as Carlos Laguna Campos, also known as Lagunas Campos, also known as Oscar Laguan Campos, also known as Norbelio Campos-Lagunas, also known as Carlo Garcia, also known as Oberlin Campos,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:19-CR-62-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Oscar Campos-Lagunas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-50707 Document: 00515302062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2020

No. 19-50707

§ 1326(b)(2), which increased his statutory maximum sentence to 20 years of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, is unconstitutional because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as an element of a separate offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent decisions indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in Almendarez-Torres. In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239-47, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Campos-Lagunas’s argument is foreclosed. 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.