Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Oscar Garza-Rodriguez was convicted and sentenced for illegal reentry after removal from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
On appeal, Garza-Rodriguez argued that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), foreclosed his argument. The government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Garza-Rodriguez’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by controlling precedent. The court cited United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019), and noted that Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024), described Almendarez-Torres as a narrow exception permitting judges to determine the fact of a prior conviction.
Because the issue was foreclosed, the court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate. It granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the alternative request for an extension of time as moot, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres foreclosed Garza-Rodriguez’s constitutional challenge to the recidivism enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
- The Fifth Circuit recognized the prior-conviction rule as a narrow exception permitting judges to find the fact of a prior conviction.
- The court resolved the appeal through summary affirmance and affirmed both the conviction and sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision applies controlling Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent to a constitutional challenge involving § 1326(b). It also illustrates that summary affirmance is appropriate when an appellant concedes that binding precedent forecloses the issue presented.