Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eulalio Soto Duarte appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. For the first time on appeal, he challenged the constitutionality of the enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief. Soto Duarte took no position on summary affirmance but acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States foreclosed his argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Soto Duarte’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by binding precedent. It 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 the issue was foreclosed, the court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate. It granted the government’s summary-affirmance motion, denied the alternative request for an extension of time, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres foreclosed Soto Duarte’s constitutional challenge to the § 1326(b) enhancement.
- The court described the prior-conviction rule as a narrow exception allowing judges to find the fact of a prior conviction.
- The Fifth Circuit resolved the appeal through summary affirmance and left the conviction and sentence intact.
Why It Matters
The decision applies binding Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent to reject a constitutional challenge to § 1326(b). It also illustrates that summary affirmance may be used when an appellant’s argument is squarely foreclosed by precedent.