Background
Miguel Diego-Mateo pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas sentenced him to 30 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Diego-Mateo argued for the first time that his sentence was unconstitutional because the district court enhanced it under § 1326(b)(1) based on a prior felony conviction that was neither alleged in the indictment nor mentioned in his guilty plea. He acknowledged that Supreme Court precedent foreclosed the argument but raised it to preserve the issue for further review. The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a merits brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that Diego-Mateo’s sole appellate argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), under which a prior conviction used to increase the statutory penalty for illegal reentry need not be alleged in the indictment or established through the guilty plea.
Because controlling precedent resolved the only issue presented, the panel held that summary affirmance was appropriate. It granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the alternative request for more time as moot, and affirmed Diego-Mateo’s sentence.
Key Takeaways
- A prior felony conviction may support an enhanced illegal-reentry sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) even if the conviction was not alleged in the indictment or mentioned in the guilty plea.
- The Fifth Circuit remains bound by Almendarez-Torres unless the Supreme Court overrules it.
- Summary affirmance is appropriate when controlling precedent forecloses the only issue raised on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that defendants in the Fifth Circuit cannot obtain relief on the theory that a prior conviction enhancing an illegal-reentry sentence had to be charged in the indictment or addressed in the plea. Such defendants may still raise the issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.
The ruling also illustrates the court’s use of summary affirmance when an appeal presents no issue open under existing precedent, allowing disposition without full merits briefing.