Background
Samuel Isidro De La Fuente appealed his conviction and sentence under Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code for illegal reentry. He also appealed the revocation of his term of supervised release and the imposition of a new sentence. While he did not challenge the revocation, he argued that the statutory sentencing enhancement in Section thirteen twenty-six, subsection B, was unconstitutional. He conceded that this argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States and sought only to preserve the issue for potential Supreme Court review.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that the appellant conceded his argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court observed that the Supreme Court in Erlinger v. United States explained that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Because the appellant’s argument was foreclosed, the court determined that summary affirmance was appropriate under Fifth Circuit precedent.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the binding nature of Almendarez-Torres regarding sentencing enhancements for illegal reentry in the Fifth Circuit. It allows for the efficient resolution of appeals where the appellant concedes the legal issue is foreclosed by existing authority.