Background
Manfredi Diaz-Cuellar appealed his sentence for illegal reentry in violation of Section eight thousand one hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. He argued that the district court unconstitutionally enhanced his sentence under Section eight thousand one hundred twenty-six, subsection B. However, he conceded that this argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the appellant’s sole argument was foreclosed by existing precedent. The opinion cites United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States to confirm that the rule permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction persists as a narrow exception. Consequently, summary affirmance was deemed appropriate under Fifth Circuit Rule forty-seven point five.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the binding nature of Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit regarding sentence enhancements for illegal reentry, ensuring that challenges based on judicial fact-finding of prior convictions are dismissed when the appellant concedes the point.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download