Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Padron-Rivera
Citation: 72 F. App'x 218Docket: No. 03-40253
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; August 20, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Sergio Padron-Rivera appeals his sentence following a guilty plea for illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced under § 1326(b) due to a prior conviction, claiming that this enhancement is unconstitutional. He contends that the sentence should not exceed the maximum terms outlined in § 1326(a). Padron-Rivera acknowledges that his argument contradicts the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which established that the enhancements under § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of a separate offense, and do not violate the Due Process Clause. He highlights that while Almendarez-Torres remains binding, its validity has been questioned by the later case Apprendi v. New Jersey, which he wishes to preserve for further review. However, the court reaffirms that Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres, and thus it must follow the precedent established by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. The district court's judgment is affirmed, and the Government’s motion for summary affirmance without requiring an appellee's brief is granted. The opinion is determined not to be published and is not considered precedent except under specific circumstances outlined in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.