Background
Francisco Marte-Roble appealed his conviction for illegal reentry under Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. He argued for the first time that the statutory sentencing enhancement in subsection b of that statute is unconstitutional. He conceded that this argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
The court’s reasoning
The court determined that Marte-Roble’s argument was foreclosed by binding precedent. The opinion cited United States v. Pervis and noted that the Supreme Court in Erlinger v. United States explained that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. The court found that summary affirmance was fitting because the government’s position was clearly right as a matter of law and there was no substantial question as to the outcome.
Marte-Roble’s argument is foreclosed by precedent.
United States v. Marte-Roble, No. 25-50591 (5th Cir. June 12, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that challenges to the constitutionality of the Section thirteen twenty-six subsection b sentencing enhancement cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in the Fifth Circuit.