Background
Juarez-Velasquez appealed his conviction and sentence from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 4:25-CR-260-1). The appeal involved a statutory reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), the federal statute prohibiting illegal re-entry of removed aliens.
On appeal, Juarez-Velasquez challenged the constitutionality of his sentence. The Government filed a motion to reform the judgment by striking the statutory reference to § 1326(b)(2) from the trial court’s order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit granted the Government’s motion to reform the judgment and struck the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The court then affirmed the sentence as modified.
Regarding the constitutional challenge to the sentence, the court held that such a challenge is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s precedent in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Therefore, the constitutional argument could not succeed as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- Constitutional challenges to sentences in this context remain barred by Almendarez-Torres precedent
- The Fifth Circuit granted reform of the judgment to strike the statutory reference
- The underlying sentence was affirmed as modified
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms the continued vitality of Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit, foreclosing certain constitutional arguments regarding sentences in federal criminal cases. The modification of the judgment indicates the court resolved a technical statutory reference issue raised by the Government’s motion.
For practitioners handling immigration-related criminal appeals in the Fifth Circuit, this confirms that sentencing constitutional challenges in this context remain subject to the Almendarez-Torres limitations established by Supreme Court precedent.