Background
Jose Leonel Beltran-Nino appealed his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. For the first time on appeal, he argued that the statutory sentencing enhancement in Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight is unconstitutional. He conceded that this theory is foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the defendant’s argument is foreclosed by binding precedent. The court cited United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States to confirm that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Consequently, summary affirmance was deemed appropriate.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the finality of prior conviction findings in illegal reentry cases and prevents new constitutional challenges to the associated sentencing enhancements that have already been settled by the Supreme Court.