United States v. Botello – Do It For The Caselaw

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry after the appellant conceded that his constitutional challenge was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. The court granted the government's motion for summary affirmance, noting that the argument regarding the statutory sentencing enhancement was already settled by Almendarez-Torres.

Background

Hilario Corona Botello appealed his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. He argued that the statutory sentencing enhancement under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six subsection b was unconstitutional. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance.

The court’s reasoning

The court noted that the appellant conceded his arguments were foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres versus United States. The court cited United States versus Pervis and Erlinger versus United States to explain that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Consequently, summary affirmance was deemed appropriate.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the continued validity of the Almendarez-Torres exception in the Fifth Circuit for illegal reentry cases, allowing summary affirmance when appellants concede the point.

Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download