United States v. Melara-Murillo – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the defendant's constitutional challenge to the sentencing enhancement was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
Standard: Almendarez-Torres precedent
Vote: Per Curiam decision granting summary affirmance.
Practical effect: The decision reinforces the current legal standard that prior convictions may be found by judges for sentencing enhancement purposes without a jury finding, despite ongoing challenges to the underlying precedent.

United States v. Melara-Murillo

June 2, 2026 ·25-50644 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenge to the sentencing enhancement was foreclosed by existing Supreme Court precedent.

Background

Jose Salvador Melara-Murillo appealed his guilty plea conviction and sentence under Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He argued that the sentencing enhancement in Section thirteen twenty-six, subsection B, was unconstitutional. The Government moved for summary affirmance.

The court’s reasoning

The court found that Melara-Murillo’s argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court noted that the Supreme Court has explained that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. The court cited United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States in support of this conclusion.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the current legal standard that prior convictions may be found by judges for sentencing enhancement purposes without a jury finding, despite ongoing challenges to the underlying precedent.