Background
Felix Antonio Escobar appealed his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, the federal illegal-reentry statute. He argued that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum as a sentencing factor for the judge, rather than as an element of the offense.
The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file its brief. Escobar took no position on the motion and acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States foreclosed his constitutional argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that binding precedent foreclosed Escobar’s challenge. Under Almendarez-Torres, the fact of a prior conviction remains a narrow exception to the general rule requiring facts that increase a statutory maximum to be treated as offense elements and found by a jury.
Because Escobar’s position was foreclosed, the court granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment. It denied as moot the government’s alternative request for more time to file a brief.
Key Takeaways
- A prior conviction used to increase the statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) may be treated as a sentencing factor rather than an offense element.
- The Fifth Circuit remains bound by the Supreme Court’s narrow prior-conviction exception in Almendarez-Torres.
- Summary affirmance is appropriate when binding precedent squarely forecloses the appellant’s argument.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that defendants sentenced under § 1326 cannot obtain relief in the Fifth Circuit by arguing that the prior conviction supporting an enhanced statutory maximum had to be charged as an element and proved to a jury. Unless the Supreme Court revisits Almendarez-Torres, lower courts remain bound by its prior-conviction exception.