USA v. Armando Ramirez-Hernandez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-10326 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: PRO, Judge: CH. Mandate issue date is 11/20/2017 for Appellant Armando Ramirez-Hernandez; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8525730-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8525730-3] [17-10326]

Case: 17-10326

Document: 00514214513

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/27/2017

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

No. 17-10326
Summary Calendar

FILED
October 27, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARMANDO RAMIREZ-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:16-CR-24-1
Before JONES, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Armando Ramirez-Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was
sentenced above the advisory guidelines range to 40 months of imprisonment
and three years of supervised release. He maintains that his guilty plea was
involuntary because he was not admonished that the prior felony provision of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) was an element of the offense that the Government had
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise, he argues that the enhancement

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-10326

Document: 00514214513

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/27/2017

No. 17-10326
provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional because they treat past convictions
as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense; he contends that his
indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction, and, thus, he could be
sentenced to no more than two years in prison pursuant to § 1326(a). RamirezHernandez concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he asserts that he seeks to preserve
his claims for possible future review.
The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively,
for an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is proper when,
among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a
matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of
the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (5th Cir.
1969).
As Ramirez-Hernandez concedes, his appellate claims are foreclosed by
Almendarez-Torres. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), did
not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d
204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir.
2014). Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an
extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

2