Background
Oscar Garza-Rodriguez was convicted and sentenced for illegal reentry after removal from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
On appeal, Garza-Rodriguez 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, an extension of time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Garza-Rodriguez’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by binding precedent. It relied on United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019), and noted that Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024), described Almendarez-Torres as a narrow exception allowing judges to find the fact of a prior conviction.
Because precedent controlled the only issue raised, the court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate under Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). It granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the alternative extension request as moot, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Almendarez-Torres continues to foreclose Fifth Circuit challenges to § 1326(b) based on judicial findings of prior convictions.
- Erlinger did not eliminate the narrow prior-conviction exception recognized in Almendarez-Torres.
- Summary affirmance is available 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 on a standalone claim that § 1326(b)’s recidivism enhancement is unconstitutional when the enhancement rests on the fact of a prior conviction. Unless the Supreme Court overrules or further limits Almendarez-Torres, lower courts remain bound by it.