Background
The defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry, arguing that the sentencing enhancement under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six, subsection B, was unconstitutional. The defendant conceded that this argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres versus United States.
The court’s reasoning
The court agreed with the parties that the constitutional challenge was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres versus United States. The court noted that the Supreme Court has explained that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Consequently, the court found summary affirmance appropriate.
The parties are correct that the argument is foreclosed.
United States v. Corea-Ramos, No. 25-11260 (5th Cir. June 12, 2026)
What it means going forward
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, upholding the conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.