Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cesar Delgado pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Texas to illegal reentry into the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Because Delgado had previously been removed following a conviction for a non-aggravated felony, the district court sentenced him under the enhanced penalty provision of § 1326(b)(1), which raises the maximum term from two years to ten years of imprisonment. The district court imposed a sentence of 51 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Delgado argued that his sentence violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because the fact of his prior felony conviction — which triggered the enhanced statutory maximum — was neither alleged in his indictment nor admitted by him. He grounded this argument in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which generally requires that any fact increasing a statutory maximum be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Delgado nonetheless conceded that his argument was foreclosed by existing precedent. The government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Clement, Richman, and Willett granted the government’s motion and summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Delgado’s constitutional challenge is squarely foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which carved out a narrow exception to Apprendi permitting judges — rather than juries — to find the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes.
The court noted that Almendarez-Torres remains binding Supreme Court precedent, citing the Fifth Circuit’s own decision in United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2019), as well as the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception allowing judicial fact-finding as to prior convictions. Because no legal or factual question warranted full briefing, summary affirmance was appropriate under Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969).
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres remains good law in the Fifth Circuit: a judge may find the fact of a prior conviction to trigger a higher statutory maximum without that fact being charged in the indictment or admitted by the defendant.
- The Apprendi line of cases does not disturb this prior-conviction exception, and the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Erlinger expressly confirmed that Almendarez-Torres survives as a narrow carve-out.
- Where a defendant concedes that his argument is foreclosed by controlling precedent, the Fifth Circuit will grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance without full merits briefing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that defendants convicted of illegal reentry face significantly enhanced exposure — up to ten years rather than two — whenever a prior felony removal is established at sentencing, even without a jury finding or an admission in a plea colloquy. Defense counsel challenging this framework on Apprendi grounds continue to face a ceiling imposed by Almendarez-Torres that neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has dismantled.
The case also illustrates the continued vitality of the summary affirmance procedure in the Fifth Circuit for appeals that are concededly controlled by existing precedent, allowing the court to dispose of such matters efficiently without requiring full briefing from either side.