Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gilberto Mendoza-Yerbafria appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. He also appealed the revocation of supervised release imposed in an earlier case, although he did not challenge the revocation judgment on appeal.
As to his new conviction, Mendoza-Yerbafria argued that the enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) was unconstitutional. He acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States foreclosed his argument. The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Mendoza-Yerbafria’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by binding precedent. The court cited its decision in United States v. Pervis and the Supreme Court’s explanation in Erlinger v. United States that Almendarez-Torres remains a narrow exception permitting judges to find the fact of a prior conviction.
Because existing precedent controlled the issue, 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, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A constitutional challenge to the enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) remains foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit.
- The prior-conviction exception persists as a narrow rule allowing a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction.
- The court summarily affirmed both judgments because Mendoza-Yerbafria raised no challenge to the supervised-release revocation and his challenge to the new conviction was foreclosed.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Fifth Circuit panels remain bound by Almendarez-Torres when reviewing constitutional challenges to § 1326(b). A defendant’s acknowledgment that controlling precedent forecloses the only disputed issue can support summary affirmance without full merits briefing.