Narrative Opinion Summary
Fernando Contreras-Rojas appeals his sentence for illegal reentry, arguing that the enhancement under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) is unconstitutional because his prior conviction was not alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which determined that prior convictions do not need to be included in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt for sentencing enhancements. The Fifth Circuit has upheld this interpretation in previous cases, stating subsequent rulings such as Alleyne and Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. The court emphasized that appeals based on this precedent are typically frivolous and cautioned against asserting non-debatable arguments. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is granted, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is denied, and the district court's judgment is affirmed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Fifth Circuit Precedent on Sentencing Enhancementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Fifth Circuit has consistently upheld the precedent set by Almendarez-Torres, rejecting arguments based on later cases like Alleyne and Apprendi.
Reasoning: The Fifth Circuit has upheld this interpretation in previous cases, stating subsequent rulings such as Alleyne and Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres.
Frivolous Appeals Against Established Precedentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Appeals based on arguments foreclosed by well-established precedent may be deemed frivolous by the court.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that appeals based on this precedent are typically frivolous and cautioned against asserting non-debatable arguments.
Precedent of Almendarez-Torres v. United Statessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States allows prior convictions to be used for sentencing enhancements without being included in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasoning: He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which determined that prior convictions do not need to be included in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt for sentencing enhancements.
Sentencing Enhancement for Illegal Reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The enhancement of a sentence based on prior convictions does not require the prior conviction to be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury.
Reasoning: Fernando Contreras-Rojas appeals his sentence for illegal reentry, arguing that the enhancement under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) is unconstitutional because his prior conviction was not alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury.
Summary Affirmance of District Court Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: When an appeal lacks merit due to binding precedent, a motion for summary affirmance may be granted by the appellate court.
Reasoning: The Government's motion for summary affirmance is granted, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is denied, and the district court's judgment is affirmed.