Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Alonso Pineda-Urquia appealed his sentence for illegally reentering the United States after removal, in violation of 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 neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pineda-Urquia acknowledged that Supreme Court precedent foreclosed his argument and raised the issue to preserve it for further review. The government moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for additional time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Pineda-Urquia’s sole appellate argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which permits a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes without submitting that fact to a jury. The panel noted that the Supreme Court continued to recognize this narrow exception in Erlinger v. United States.
Because controlling precedent resolved the only issue on appeal, 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 an extension of time to file a brief.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing judge may determine the fact of a prior conviction under the narrow exception recognized in Almendarez-Torres.
- The Fifth Circuit remains bound by that precedent despite constitutional challenges based on the indictment and jury-trial requirements.
- Summary affirmance is appropriate when controlling precedent squarely forecloses the appellant’s only argument.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that defendants challenging enhanced illegal-reentry sentences under § 1326(b) cannot obtain relief in the Fifth Circuit on the theory that prior convictions must be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury. Such defendants may still raise the issue to preserve it for possible further review, but current Supreme Court and circuit precedent forecloses the claim.