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. He argued for the first time on appeal that a sentencing enhancement provision in the relevant statute is unconstitutional. He did not challenge the revocation judgment.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the defendant’s argument regarding the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres versus United States. The court noted that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. The court also cited United States versus Pervis and Erlinger versus United States to support the conclusion that the argument is foreclosed. Consequently, summary affirmance was deemed appropriate.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the binding nature of Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit regarding sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions in illegal reentry cases.