Background
Eloy Padilla-Saldana was convicted of illegal reentry in violation of Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. On appeal, he raised a constitutional challenge for the first time regarding the statutory sentencing enhancement found in Section thirteen twenty-six, subsection B.
The court’s reasoning
The court determined that the defendant’s argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres versus United States. The court noted that the government correctly moved for summary affirmance, citing Fifth Circuit precedent in United States versus Pervis and the Supreme Court’s recent explanation in Erlinger versus United States that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that challenges to the constitutionality of the illegal reentry sentencing enhancement based on prior convictions are not viable under current Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court authority.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download