The Fifth Circuit affirmed a sentence under the federal immigration statute 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenge to the statute was foreclosed by existing Supreme Court precedent.
Background
Daniel Rodriguez-Padilla appealed his sentence imposed under 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. He argued that the statute is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum as a sentencing factor instead of an element of the offense.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that Rodriguez-Padilla conceded his argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court cited United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States to confirm that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Consequently, summary affirmance was deemed appropriate.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that challenges to the treatment of prior convictions under 8 U.S.C. Section 1326 are foreclosed by current Supreme Court precedent, leading to automatic affirmance in similar cases.
