Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Pablo Castellano-Martinez was convicted and sentenced for illegally reentering the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
On appeal, Castellano-Martinez argued that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States foreclosed that argument. The government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file its brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that binding precedent foreclosed Castellano-Martinez’s constitutional challenge. It explained that Almendarez-Torres remains a narrow exception allowing judges to find the fact of a prior conviction without requiring that fact to be determined by a jury.
Because the appeal presented no issue open under controlling precedent, the court concluded that summary disposition was appropriate. It granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the alternative request for an extension of time, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres continues to foreclose Fifth Circuit challenges to § 1326(b) based on judicial findings of prior convictions.
- The prior-conviction exception remains narrow and permits a judge to find only the fact of a prior conviction.
- Summary affirmance is appropriate when controlling precedent conclusively resolves the appellant’s argument.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision confirms that defendants may preserve challenges to § 1326(b), but Fifth Circuit panels remain bound to reject them while Almendarez-Torres remains controlling law.
It also illustrates the court’s willingness to use summary affirmance when an appellant concedes that existing precedent forecloses the sole issue presented.