Background
Gustavo Salas-Romero was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Salas-Romero appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fifth Circuit, raising a new constitutional argument for the first time on appeal.
The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). The government responded by moving for summary affirmance, arguing that the defendant’s constitutional argument was foreclosed by established precedent, and requested an extension of time to file its brief as an alternative remedy.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Salas-Romero’s sole argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which established a narrow exception to Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), which confirmed that the Almendarez-Torres exception persists as valid constitutional doctrine. Accordingly, the court rejected the defendant’s constitutional challenge and affirmed the conviction and sentencing enhancement without further analysis.
Key Takeaways
- Constitutional challenges to the illegal reentry sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) remain foreclosed under Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
- The Almendarez-Torres narrow exception allowing judicial factfinding regarding prior convictions continues to apply to sentencing enhancements.
- Recent Supreme Court precedent in Erlinger v. United States reaffirms the validity of the Almendarez-Torres exception.
- Arguments to preserve issues for potential Supreme Court review do not prevent summary affirmance when controlling precedent is clear.
Why It Matters
This summary affirmance reinforces the constitutionality of federal sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions in immigration cases. Defense practitioners should note that constitutional Sixth Amendment challenges to the illegal reentry enhancement under § 1326(b) remain foreclosed absent a change in Supreme Court precedent. The Fifth Circuit’s reliance on Almendarez-Torres and Erlinger confirms that this narrow exception to jury trial requirements continues to govern sentencing in these cases.
For prosecutors and immigration enforcement, the decision provides certainty that sentencing enhancements for repeat illegal entry remain valid and enforceable. However, the opinion signals that any attempt to overturn this doctrine would need to reach the Supreme Court, as lower courts are bound by the Almendarez-Torres framework even if circumstances suggest it may be vulnerable to challenge.