Background
Gilberto Mendoza-Yerbafria appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. He also appealed the revocation of supervised release imposed in an earlier criminal case, although he raised no challenge to the revocation judgment.
As to the illegal-reentry conviction, Mendoza-Yerbafria argued that the sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 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 moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, additional time to file a brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Mendoza-Yerbafria’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by binding precedent. It relied on Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, noting that the Supreme Court has continued to describe Almendarez-Torres as a narrow exception allowing judges to find the fact of a prior conviction.
Because the only argument raised was foreclosed, the court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate. It granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the alternative request for an extension of time, and affirmed the district court’s judgments.
Key Takeaways
- A constitutional challenge to the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) enhancement remains foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres in the Fifth Circuit.
- Judges may continue to find the fact of a prior conviction under the narrow prior-conviction exception recognized by the Supreme Court.
- The court summarily affirmed both consolidated judgments, including the unchallenged supervised-release revocation.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Fifth Circuit defendants cannot obtain relief from a § 1326(b) sentencing enhancement merely by preserving a constitutional objection to judicial factfinding about a prior conviction. Unless the Supreme Court revisits Almendarez-Torres, that challenge remains controlled by existing precedent.
The opinion also illustrates the court’s use of summary affirmance when an appellant’s dispositive argument is expressly foreclosed and no developed challenge is made to a consolidated revocation judgment.