Background
Ramiro Quevedo-Escobar was convicted of illegal reentry under Section eight thousand one hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. He appealed the thirty-six-month sentence imposed following his conviction, arguing for the first time that the enhancement in Section eight thousand one hundred twenty-six, subsection B, is unconstitutional.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that the appellant conceded his argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court relied on Fifth Circuit precedent in United States v. Pervis and the Supreme Court’s recent explanation in Erlinger v. United States that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Because the argument was foreclosed, summary affirmance was appropriate.
What it means going forward
The ruling confirms that challenges to the constitutionality of the illegal reentry sentencing enhancement based on prior conviction findings are foreclosed by existing Supreme Court precedent, allowing for summary affirmance in similar cases where the appellant concedes the point.