Background
Rogelio Reyes appealed his sentence following a guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. Reyes challenged the application of the enhanced penalty range under subsection b of that statute, arguing it was unconstitutional because it allowed a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a prior felony conviction not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that the defendant conceded the issue was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court also cited United States v. Pervis as controlling Fifth Circuit precedent on this point. Because the legal issue was settled, the court found summary affirmance appropriate.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the continued validity of using prior felony convictions to enhance sentences for illegal reentry without requiring those convictions to be alleged in the indictment or proven to a jury, consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Almendarez-Torres.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download