Background
David Pablo Castellano-Martinez was convicted and sentenced in the Northern District of Texas for illegal reentry after removal from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
On appeal, Castellano-Martinez argued that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), foreclosed his argument. The government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that binding precedent foreclosed Castellano-Martinez’s constitutional challenge. The court noted that Almendarez-Torres remains a narrow exception permitting a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction without submitting that issue to a jury.
Because the appeal presented no issue open for resolution under controlling precedent, the court granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment. It denied the government’s alternative request for an extension of time to file a brief.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres continues to foreclose Fifth Circuit challenges to § 1326(b) based on judicial findings of prior convictions.
- The prior-conviction exception remains narrow and permits judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction.
- Summary affirmance is appropriate when binding precedent squarely forecloses the appellant’s sole argument.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that defendants in the Fifth Circuit cannot obtain relief from § 1326(b) recidivism enhancements merely by preserving a constitutional challenge to Almendarez-Torres. Unless the Supreme Court changes that precedent, the fact of a prior conviction may continue to be determined by the sentencing judge.