Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Miguel Diego-Mateo pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas sentenced him to 30 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Diego-Mateo argued for the first time that enhancing his sentence under § 1326(b)(1) based on a prior felony conviction violated the Constitution because the prior conviction was neither alleged in the indictment nor mentioned in his guilty plea. He acknowledged that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), foreclosed the argument but raised it to preserve the issue for further review. The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a merits brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment. Because Almendarez-Torres permits a prior conviction to support an enhanced illegal-reentry sentence without being charged in the indictment, the court concluded that binding precedent foreclosed Diego-Mateo’s sole appellate argument.
The court granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance under Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). It denied the government’s alternative request for an extension of time as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Binding Supreme Court precedent foreclosed Diego-Mateo’s constitutional challenge to the § 1326(b)(1) enhancement based on his prior felony conviction.
- The Fifth Circuit resolved the appeal through summary affirmance because the foreclosed argument was the only issue presented.
- Diego-Mateo preserved the constitutional argument for possible further review despite acknowledging that existing precedent defeated it in the Fifth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, unless the Supreme Court revisits Almendarez-Torres, defendants in the Fifth Circuit cannot obtain relief by arguing that a prior conviction used to enhance an illegal-reentry sentence had to be alleged in the indictment or addressed in the guilty plea.
It also illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s willingness to use summary affirmance when binding precedent squarely forecloses the only appellate issue.