Summary
Illegal reentry sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on prior convictions not alleged in indictment; defendant's constitutional challenge is foreclosed by **Almendarez-Torres v. United States**, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance, upholding a within-Guidelines 57-month sentence because the sole issue is foreclosed by circuit precedent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the sentence of 57 months for illegal reentry is unconstitutional because it exceeds the statutory maximum under § 1326(a) when the two prior convictions used to enhance the sentence under § 1326(b)(2) were not alleged in the indictment or included in the stipulated factual basis.
Holdings
- The argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision, not a separate offense, and thus prior convictions need not be alleged in the indictment.
Key quotations
“Ruiz-Ruiz concedes this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 239 (1998).” (2)
Factual background
Ruiz-Ruiz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced him to 57 months of imprisonment, which was within the Guidelines range. The sentence was enhanced under § 1326(b)(2) based on two prior convictions.
Procedural history
Ruiz-Ruiz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and received a within-Guidelines sentence of 57 months. He appeals, arguing that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum because the two prior convictions used to enhance his sentence under § 1326(b)(2) were not alleged in the indictment or included in the factual basis.