Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of illegal reentry into the United States following a felony conviction and subsequent deportation. The appellant challenges the district court's decision to impose an eight-level sentence enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Although he disputes this enhancement, the appellant acknowledges that the challenge is precluded by existing circuit precedent, specifically citing United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez and United States v. Rivera. Additionally, the appellant contends that the statutory provisions under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey. However, this constitutional argument is similarly foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which remains authoritative. While the appellant concedes these points are currently barred, he raises them to preserve the issues for potential future review. Ultimately, the court affirms the conviction and notes that the opinion will not be published as precedent, except under specific conditions as detailed in the Fifth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's argument that the statutes are unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey is foreclosed by the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres v. United States.
Reasoning: Gutierrez also argues that the provisions regarding 'felony' and 'aggravated felony' under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional based on Apprendi v. New Jersey; however, this argument is also precluded by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which remains binding despite Gutierrez’s claims of its potential overruling.
Non-Publication of Opinions as Precedentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not published as precedent except under specific circumstances as outlined by the Fifth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: The court affirms the conviction and states that the opinion is not to be published as precedent except under specific circumstances outlined in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Preservation of Issues for Future Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant raises constitutional challenges to preserve the issues for future review, despite them being currently foreclosed by binding precedent.
Reasoning: He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and relevant circuit decisions, but raises them to preserve his right for future review.
Sentence Enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied an eight-level sentence enhancement for the defendant's illegal reentry following a felony conviction, consistent with established circuit precedent.
Reasoning: He contests the district court's imposition of an eight-level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), but acknowledges that his challenge is barred by established circuit precedent, specifically referencing United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez and United States v. Rivera.