Background
Antonio Manuel Vazquez-Rodriguez appealed his conviction and sentence under Section one three two six of Title eight of the United States Code for illegal reentry. He argued that the sentencing enhancement provision in Section one three two six subsection b was unconstitutional. The Government moved for summary affirmance, asserting the challenge was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the defendant’s argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The court noted 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 to support the conclusion that the argument was foreclosed. Summary affirmance was deemed appropriate under Fifth Circuit precedent.
Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the binding nature of Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit regarding sentencing enhancements for prior convictions in illegal reentry cases. It prevents defendants from challenging the constitutionality of such enhancements when the prior conviction is the sole basis for the enhancement.