Background
Adan Sandoval-Linan appealed his sentence for illegal reentry under 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 admitted by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sandoval-Linan acknowledged that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), foreclosed his argument, but raised the issue to preserve it for further review. The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file its brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Sandoval-Linan’s sole argument was foreclosed by binding precedent. It explained that Almendarez-Torres remains a narrow exception allowing a sentencing judge to find the fact of a prior conviction without requiring that fact to be alleged in the indictment and admitted or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because the appeal presented no issue open for resolution by the panel, 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 briefing time.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres continues to permit judges to find the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes.
- The Fifth Circuit remains bound by that precedent despite constitutional challenges to enhanced sentences under § 1326(b).
- Summary affirmance is appropriate when an appellant’s only argument is squarely foreclosed by controlling authority.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that defendants sentenced under § 1326(b) cannot obtain relief in the Fifth Circuit merely by arguing that a prior conviction had to be charged in the indictment and admitted or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the Supreme Court revisits Almendarez-Torres, Fifth Circuit panels will treat that challenge as foreclosed.