USA v. Loreto Ramos-Pablo
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11706 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: ECP , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 08/24/2017 for Appellant Loreto Ramos-Pablo; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8472204-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8472204-3] [16-11706]
Date Filed: 08/03/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
August 3, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-134-1
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Loreto Ramos-Pablo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal from
the United States and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, to be followed by
a two-year term of supervised release. Ramos-Pablo argues on appeal that his
indictment failed to invoke the sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(2), as his indictment failed to allege the existence of a prior
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 08/03/2017
conviction. He contends that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum
penalty for a conviction under § 1326(a) and violates his due process rights.
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance, asserting that Ramos-Pablo’s argument is foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). As Ramos-Pablo
concedes that his argument is foreclosed and is raised only to preserve it for
further review, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp.,
Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for
summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of
time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?