United States v. De La Fuente – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence because the defendant conceded that his constitutional challenge to the statutory sentencing enhancement was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
Vote: Per Curiam decision granting summary affirmance.
Practical effect: The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Texas is affirmed. The defendant's constitutional challenge to the sentencing enhancement is rejected based on binding precedent.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction and supervised release revocation of Samuel Isidro De La Fuente for illegal reentry. The court granted the Government's motion for summary affirmance because the defendant conceded his constitutional challenge was foreclosed by existing precedent.

Background

Samuel Isidro De La Fuente appealed his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. Section 1326 for illegal reentry into the United States. He also appealed the revocation of his term of supervised release and the imposition of a new sentence. Regarding the new conviction, De La Fuente argued that the statutory sentencing enhancement in Section 1326(b) was unconstitutional. He did not raise any issue related to the revocation of supervised release.

The court’s reasoning

The court noted that De La Fuente conceded his argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court observed that the defendant sought to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. Citing United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States, the court explained that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Because the argument was foreclosed, summary affirmance was 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 for the Western District of Texas is affirmed. The defendant’s constitutional challenge to the sentencing enhancement is rejected based on binding precedent.