Edmundo Hernandez-Avila appealed two orders from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. First, he challenged his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). Second, he appealed the revocation of his supervised release and the imposition of a new sentence. On appeal, Hernandez-Avila did not contest the supervised release revocation. Instead, he focused solely on the constitutionality of the statutory sentencing enhancement found in § 1326(b), arguing that it violated his rights. The government moved for summary affirmance, noting that the defendant's legal position was already settled by existing case law.
The court addressed the defendant's sole argument regarding the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement. Hernandez-Avila conceded that his argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court established a narrow exception to the general rule that facts increasing a penalty must be found by a jury, permitting judges to find the fact of a prior conviction as a sentencing factor. The Fifth Circuit noted that this precedent remains valid, citing Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024), which explained that Almendarez-Torres 'persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction.' Because the defendant's argument was explicitly foreclosed by this binding authority, the court determined that summary affirmance was the appropriate disposition.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, meaning Hernandez-Avila's conviction and sentence for illegal reentry stand. The decision reinforces the continued viability of the Almendarez-Torres exception within the Fifth Circuit, allowing sentencing judges to apply enhancements based on prior convictions without a jury finding. While the defendant preserved his argument for possible Supreme Court review, the Fifth Circuit's ruling confirms that lower courts must follow the existing precedent until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.