Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Sandoval-Linan — Fifth Circuit summarily affirmed an illegal-reentry sentence based on binding precedent

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
United States of America v. Adan Sandoval-Linan
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge
Willett; Duncan; Engelhardt
Date Decided
October 7, 2026
Docket No.
26-50069
Topics
Illegal Reentry; Sentencing; Prior Convictions; Summary Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Adan Sandoval-Linan appealed his sentence for illegal reentry under 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 that were neither alleged in the indictment nor admitted by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sandoval-Linan acknowledged that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), foreclosed his argument but raised it to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit held that Sandoval-Linan’s sole argument was foreclosed by binding precedent. It relied on Almendarez-Torres and United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2019), and noted that Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), described Almendarez-Torres as a narrow exception permitting judges to find the fact of a prior conviction.

Because the only issue on appeal was controlled by existing precedent, 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

  • In the Fifth Circuit, Almendarez-Torres continues to foreclose constitutional challenges to § 1326(b) based on judicial findings concerning prior convictions.
  • The prior-conviction exception remains narrow but binding despite later Sixth Amendment sentencing decisions.
  • Summary affirmance is appropriate when an appellant’s sole argument is squarely foreclosed by controlling precedent.

Why It Matters

The decision confirms that defendants sentenced under § 1326(b) cannot obtain relief in the Fifth Circuit by arguing that a prior conviction had to be charged in the indictment and admitted or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the Supreme Court revisits Almendarez-Torres, Fifth Circuit panels remain bound to apply it.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top