United States of America v. Jose Maurillio Zertuche-Reyna
June 30, 2026·25-11360·Per Curiam·By James Taylor
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant's sentence for illegally reentering the United States after removal. The court granted the Government's motion for summary affirmance because the defendant's constitutional challenge was foreclosed by binding precedent.
Jose Maurillio Zertuche-Reyna appealed his sentence for illegally reentering the United States after having been removed, in violation of Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. He contended that the statute is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that the defendant acknowledged his argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres versus United States and raised the issue only to preserve it for further review. Citing United States versus Pervis and Erlinger versus United States, the court found the sole argument on appeal to be foreclosed. Consequently, summary affirmance was deemed appropriate.
What it means going forward
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is affirmed, leaving the defendant’s sentence for illegal reentry in place.
