Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant, convicted of unlawful reentry into the United States following deportation and a prior felony conviction, was sentenced to 33 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He appeals his conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the 'felony' and 'aggravated felony' provisions under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) and (2). However, this challenge is precluded by the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which remains authoritative despite recent jurisprudence such as Apprendi v. New Jersey. The appellant acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed but raises it to preserve the issue for potential future review. Additionally, he disputes a district court order mandating a DNA sample as a condition of his supervised release, contending it should be voided. Nevertheless, the court dismisses this argument due to lack of ripeness. Consequently, the court affirms the original judgment and dismisses part of the appeal. The opinion is designated as unpublished, thereby lacking precedential authority except under specific limited contexts.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutionality of Immigration Statutes under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's challenge to the 'felony' and 'aggravated felony' provisions is barred by existing precedent.
Reasoning: He challenges the constitutionality of the 'felony' and 'aggravated felony' provisions under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) and (2), but this challenge is barred by the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which remains binding despite Perez's arguments invoking Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Non-Publication and Precedential Value of Judicial Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's opinion in this case is unpublished and does not serve as precedent except under limited circumstances.
Reasoning: The opinion is not to be published and serves no precedent except in specific limited circumstances.
Preservation of Constitutional Arguments for Future Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant raises a constitutional argument, acknowledging its current foreclosure, to ensure its preservation for potential future adjudication.
Reasoning: Perez concedes that his constitutional argument is foreclosed but raises it to preserve it for future review.
Ripeness Requirement for Judicial Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's challenge to the DNA sample requirement as a condition of supervised release is deemed not ripe for review, resulting in dismissal.
Reasoning: Additionally, he contests a district court order requiring him to provide a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release, claiming it should be vacated; however, this issue is deemed not ripe for review, leading to a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.