Background
Juan Herrera-Lizama was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) for illegally reentering the United States after removal. He appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and challenged the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b).
Herrera-Lizama acknowledged that Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed his argument and raised it to preserve the issue for further review. 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 Herrera-Lizama’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States and the circuit’s decision in United States v. Pervis. The court also noted that Erlinger v. United States described Almendarez-Torres as a narrow exception permitting judges to find the fact of a prior conviction.
Because controlling precedent resolved the issue, the court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate. It granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the alternative request for additional briefing time, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres continues to foreclose constitutional challenges to § 1326(b) based on the use of a prior conviction for sentencing enhancement.
- The Fifth Circuit treated the prior-conviction rule as a narrow exception that remains binding after Erlinger.
- An acknowledged, precedent-foreclosed claim may be resolved through summary affirmance even when raised to preserve it for further review.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Fifth Circuit panels remain bound by Almendarez-Torres when reviewing constitutional challenges to § 1326(b). Defendants may preserve such a challenge for further review, but controlling precedent permits the court to dispose of the appeal summarily.