USA v. Intzin-Guzman, No. 21-10678 (5th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10678 Document: 00516125769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 10, 2021 No. 21-10678 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Pedro Intzin-Guzman, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-54-1 Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Pedro Intzin-Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). IntzinGuzman contends that it violates the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum sentence under § 1326(b)(1) as a * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-10678 Document: 00516125769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2021 No. 21-10678 sentencing factor, rather than as an element of the offense. He correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. As the Government asserts and as Intzin-Guzman concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the Government’s position “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 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.