Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Herrera-Lizama was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) for illegally reentering the United States after removal. He appealed, arguing that the sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional.
Herrera-Lizama acknowledged that Almendarez-Torres v. United States foreclosed his argument and raised the issue to preserve it for further review. 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 binding precedent foreclosed Herrera-Lizama’s constitutional challenge. It cited circuit precedent applying Almendarez-Torres and noted the Supreme Court’s subsequent description of that decision as a narrow exception allowing judges to find the fact of a prior conviction.
Because the appeal presented a foreclosed argument, the court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate. It granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the alternative request for an extension, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres remains binding on challenges to the sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
- The Fifth Circuit may summarily affirm when controlling precedent forecloses the appellant’s argument.
- A defendant may acknowledge adverse precedent while preserving a constitutional issue for further review.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Fifth Circuit panels remain bound by Almendarez-Torres despite continued constitutional challenges to § 1326(b). Defendants raising the issue solely for preservation should expect summary disposition while that precedent remains controlling.