Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hamilton Douglas Lanza-Rios was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Following his conviction and sentencing, Lanza-Rios appealed to the Fifth Circuit, raising a constitutional challenge to the sentencing enhancement provision in § 1326(b) for the first time on appeal.
Lanza-Rios argued that the sentencing enhancement was unconstitutional, while acknowledging that his argument appeared to be foreclosed by existing Supreme Court precedent. The Government moved for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment or, alternatively, requested an extension of time to file its brief. Lanza-Rios stated no opposition to the motion for summary affirmance but sought to preserve the constitutional issue for possible Supreme Court review.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. The court determined that Lanza-Rios’s sole constitutional argument challenging the sentencing enhancement was foreclosed by binding precedent, specifically Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which permits judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction without violating the Sixth Amendment.
The court cited United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2019), and Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), to establish that Almendarez-Torres “persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction.” Because Lanza-Rios’s argument was foreclosed by this established exception, summary affirmance was deemed appropriate. The court denied the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres remains binding Fifth Circuit precedent: judges may find facts regarding prior convictions in sentencing enhancements without violating the Sixth Amendment.
- Defendants challenging sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions under § 1326(b) cannot overcome the Almendarez-Torres exception on direct appeal in the Fifth Circuit.
- Summary affirmance is appropriate when a defendant’s sole argument is foreclosed by established precedent, even when the defendant seeks preservation for Supreme Court review.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the continuing vitality of Almendarez-Torres as a narrow but significant carve-out from Sixth Amendment jury-trial protections. While Almendarez-Torres remains limited in scope, it allows judges considerable discretion to enhance sentences based on prior convictions without the procedural requirements otherwise demanded by modern Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. This ruling signals that the Fifth Circuit will summarily reject arguments attempting to expand Sixth Amendment protections beyond the Almendarez-Torres exception.
For practitioners representing defendants convicted of illegal reentry or facing other sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions in the Fifth Circuit, this decision confirms that constitutional challenges grounded in the Sixth Amendment are foreclosed at the appellate level. Any meaningful challenge to the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s sentencing enhancement would likely require Supreme Court intervention or a change in governing law.