Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Maykel Corea-Ramos was convicted in the Northern District of Texas of illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). At sentencing, the district court applied the enhancement provision under § 1326(b), which increases the statutory maximum penalty for defendants with prior felony or aggravated felony convictions. Corea-Ramos appealed, challenging the constitutionality of that enhancement.
On appeal, Corea-Ramos argued that allowing a judge — rather than a jury — to find the fact of a prior conviction that triggers a higher sentencing range violates the Sixth Amendment. He conceded, however, that this precise argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which carved out prior convictions as a recognized exception to the general rule requiring jury findings for facts that increase a sentence’s maximum. The government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Wiener, Willett, and Wilson granted the government’s motion and summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court confirmed that Almendarez-Torres remains controlling precedent and forecloses Corea-Ramos’s constitutional challenge. Citing its own prior decision in United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019), the panel held that the prior-conviction exception permits judges to find the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes without running afoul of the Sixth Amendment.
The court also noted that the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), did not disturb Almendarez-Torres. Erlinger itself described Almendarez-Torres as “a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction,” leaving that exception intact. Because the legal question was settled and the motion unopposed, the panel found summary disposition appropriate under Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Key Takeaways
- The Almendarez-Torres prior-conviction exception remains binding in the Fifth Circuit, allowing judges to find the fact of a prior conviction at sentencing without a jury determination.
- The Supreme Court’s 2024 Erlinger decision did not overrule or narrow Almendarez-Torres; it explicitly characterized that holding as a still-viable narrow exception.
- Constitutional challenges to § 1326(b)’s sentencing enhancement on Sixth Amendment grounds continue to be foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit under Pervis.
- When a legal argument is squarely foreclosed by existing precedent and the opposing motion is unopposed, summary affirmance is the appropriate procedural vehicle.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that defendants convicted of illegal reentry face an uphill battle challenging § 1326(b) enhancements on constitutional grounds so long as Almendarez-Torres remains on the books. Despite repeated invitations for the Supreme Court to revisit the prior-conviction exception — and ongoing academic and judicial criticism of its continued viability — the Fifth Circuit and other circuits are bound to apply it unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it.
For practitioners handling illegal reentry cases, the decision is a reminder that Erlinger, while significant for other recidivism-related sentencing questions, did not create an opening to relitigate the Almendarez-Torres exception. Defense counsel seeking to preserve the issue for potential Supreme Court review should note the argument and concede its current foreclosure, as Corea-Ramos did here.