Background
Pedro Delgado-Ramirez was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas of illegal reentry in violation of Section thirteen hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. He appealed, contending that the statutory sentencing enhancement under Section thirteen hundred twenty-six, subsection B, was unconstitutional. He conceded that this issue was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States but sought to preserve the issue for potential Supreme Court review.
The court’s reasoning
The court determined that the defendant’s argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court noted that the Supreme Court has explained in Erlinger v. United States that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Citing United States v. Pervis and Erlinger, the court found that summary affirmance was appropriate under Fifth Circuit precedent.
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 challenges to the constitutionality of judicial fact-finding for prior convictions in this context.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download