Background
Gustavo Salas-Romero appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry under Section eight thousand one hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. For the first time on appeal, he argued that the sentencing enhancement in Section eight thousand one hundred twenty-six, subsection B, is unconstitutional. He acknowledged that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States but sought to preserve the issue for potential Supreme Court review.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that Salas-Romero’s sole argument regarding the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in 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. Citing United States v. Pervis and Erlinger v. United States, the court determined that summary affirmance was appropriate.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the binding nature of Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit regarding sentencing enhancements for illegal reentry, preventing defendants from raising new constitutional challenges to the fact of a prior conviction at the appellate stage.