Background
Daniel Martinez-Loyola appealed his sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after having been removed in violation of federal law. He argued that the statute allowing enhanced sentences based on prior removal was unconstitutional because the facts were not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that the defendant acknowledged his argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court cited Erlinger v. United States, explaining that the prior decision persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Because the sole argument on appeal was foreclosed, summary affirmance was appropriate.
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