Background
Luis Alonso Pineda-Urquia appealed his sentence for illegally reentering the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).
He argued that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that were neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Pineda-Urquia acknowledged that Supreme Court precedent foreclosed the argument and raised it to preserve the issue for further review. The government moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Pineda-Urquia’s sole appellate argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which permits a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction without requiring that fact to be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also noted that Erlinger v. United States described Almendarez-Torres as a narrow exception limited to the fact of a prior conviction.
Because binding precedent controlled the issue, the court granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment. It denied the government’s alternative request for additional time to file a brief.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres remains binding precedent permitting judges to determine the fact of a prior conviction for purposes of § 1326(b).
- A defendant may preserve a foreclosed constitutional argument for further review, but the Fifth Circuit remains bound to reject it.
- Summary affirmance is appropriate when the only issue on appeal is squarely foreclosed by controlling precedent.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Fifth Circuit defendants challenging § 1326(b) on indictment and jury-trial grounds cannot obtain relief under existing Supreme Court precedent. Although later decisions characterize the prior-conviction rule as narrow, Almendarez-Torres continues to govern enhancements based solely on the fact of a prior conviction.