Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a 37-month sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), rejecting the defendant's argument that his indictment failed to allege a prior conviction necessary for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b)(2). The court held that this challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States*, which treats prior convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense. Because the issue was conceded as foreclosed, the court granted summary affirmance.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a sentence enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment violates the Constitution, in light of Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
Holdings
- The argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and subsequent Fifth Circuit precedent.
Key quotations
“As the Government argues, and Rodriguez-Calderon concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres.” (p. 2)
“Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate.” (p. 2)
Factual background
Rodriguez-Calderon pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to 37 months of imprisonment, a within-guidelines sentence. The indictment did not allege any prior conviction necessary for a sentence enhancement under § 1326(b)(2).
Procedural history
Rodriguez-Calderon pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to 37 months of imprisonment, a within-guidelines sentence. He appeals, arguing that the sentence enhancement under § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because the indictment did not allege a prior conviction.