Background
Mario Alberto Ambriz-Tovar appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. He argued for the first time that the recidivism enhancement in Section thirteen twenty-six of Title eight is unconstitutional. The Government filed a motion for summary affirmance.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the defendant’s sole argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres versus 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 also cited United States versus Pervis and Erlinger versus United States as supporting authority.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the continued validity of the recidivism enhancement in illegal reentry cases despite ongoing challenges to the underlying precedent.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download