Background
Gabriel Ramos-Bernhard appealed his sentence following a conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argued that the sentencing enhancement under Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code is unconstitutional. He conceded that this issue is foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the argument regarding the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court noted that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. The court cited United States v. Pervis and Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis to support the appropriateness of summary affirmance.
The parties are correct that the argument is foreclosed and that summary affirmance is appropriate.
United States v. Ramos-Bernhard, 25-50643 (5th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Texas is affirmed, leaving the sentence in place.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download