Background
Yobani Medina-Hernandez appealed his conviction and sentence under Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He argued that the sentencing enhancement in Section thirteen twenty-six subsection b was unconstitutional but conceded that his argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
The court’s reasoning
The court determined that the parties were correct in stating that the defendant’s argument was foreclosed by binding precedent. The opinion cited United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States, noting 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.
Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024)
What it means going forward
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and the alternative motion for extension of time is denied as moot.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download