Background
Juan Pablo Ayala-Malagon appealed his conviction and sentence under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code for illegal reentry. He also appealed the revocation of his previously imposed term of supervised release and the imposition of a new sentence. Regarding the new conviction, Ayala-Malagon argued that the statutory sentencing enhancement in Section thirteen hundred twenty-six subsection B was unconstitutional. He did not raise any issue related to the revocation of supervised release.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that Ayala-Malagon conceded his only argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court cited United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States to explain 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 decision reinforces the binding nature of Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit regarding sentencing enhancements for illegal reentry, preventing defendants from challenging the constitutionality of such enhancements when they concede the point.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download