March 17, 2026·25-50659·Per Curiam·By James Taylor
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six. The court rejected a constitutional challenge to the recidivism enhancement, noting the argument is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
Efrain Chapa-Castaneda appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six. He argued for the first time that the recidivism enhancement in subsection b is unconstitutional. The Government moved for summary affirmance.
The court’s reasoning
The court found Chapa-Castaneda’s argument foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court cited United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States, explaining that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Summary affirmance was deemed appropriate under Fifth Circuit precedent.
What it means going forward
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, upholding the conviction and sentence without addressing the merits of the constitutional challenge.
