USA v. Conrado Partida-Calle


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-10561 Affirmed] Judge: PEH, Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES. Mandate issue date is 12/27/2017 for Appellant Conrado Partida-Calles; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8584149-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8584149-3] [17-10561]

Download PDF
Case: 17-10561 Document: 00514261215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10561 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CONRADO PARTIDA-CALLES, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:16-CR-41-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Conrado Partida-Calles appeals the 24-month above-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He concedes that the issue whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-10561 Document: 00514261215 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2017 No. 17-10561 and proved to a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). He seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue. 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. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have not overruled 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, Partida-Calles’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. 2

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?