Background
Ronald Fabricio Herrera-Gonzalez appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry, as well as the revocation of his term of supervised release from a previous case. Regarding the conviction, he argued for the first time on appeal that the sentencing enhancement provision of Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code is unconstitutional. He did not challenge the revocation judgment. The Government moved for summary affirmance, asserting the challenge was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that Herrera-Gonzalez’s argument regarding the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement was foreclosed by existing precedent. The court cited United States v. Pervis and noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in 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.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that challenges to sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit.