Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the appellant challenged his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 after being found in the United States following deportation. He argued that the provisions for 'felony' and 'aggravated felony' under this statute were unconstitutional, seeking a reduction to a lesser offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1362. The appellant referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which upheld the enhanced penalties under § 1326(b) as constitutional. Although he acknowledged that his argument was foreclosed by this precedent, he contended that its validity was questioned by Apprendi v. New Jersey. However, the court noted that Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres, and thus it remained binding. Consequently, the district court's decision was affirmed, and the government's motion for a summary affirmance was granted, negating the need for an appellee's brief. This opinion is unpublished and not precedential, except under certain conditions as per 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the 'felony' and 'aggravated felony' provisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, arguing they should be deemed unconstitutional.
Reasoning: He argues that the 'felony' and 'aggravated felony' provisions of this statute are unconstitutional and requests that his conviction be reduced to a lesser offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1362.
Precedent and Binding Authoritysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court adhered to the precedent established in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, as it has not been overruled by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
Reasoning: Although he recognizes that his arguments are precluded by Almendarez-Torres, he claims that the decision's validity has been questioned by the ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey. However, Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres, and the court is bound to follow the latter until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.
Summary Affirmancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The government's motion for summary affirmance was granted, eliminating the need for an appellee’s brief.
Reasoning: The district court's judgment is affirmed, and the Government's motion for a summary affirmance, requesting that an appellee’s brief be unnecessary, is granted.