United States v. Rodriguez-Cuellar

The Fifth Circuit held that § 1326(b) treats prior convictions as sentencing factors, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez‑Torres, which permits Congress to make such facts sentencing factors without jury proof.

The court concluded that Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s challenge to § 1326(b) is barred by Almendarez‑Torres, which remains binding precedent, so the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

The Fifth Circuit assumed arguendo that the waiver provision in Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s plea agreement did not bar review of his § 1326(b) challenge, leaving the issue undecided.

The Fifth Circuit, applying Almendarez‑Torres, held that § 1326(b)’s use of prior convictions as sentencing factors does not trigger the jury‑finding requirement of Apprendi.

Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s challenge to § 1326(b) was rejected because Almendarez‑Torres remains controlling precedent; the Court affirmed the foreclosure despite his argument it should be overruled.

The court assumed arguendo that the waiver provision in Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s plea agreement did not bar review of his § 1326(b) challenge.

Because the challenge to § 1326(b) was foreclosed by Almendarez‑Torres, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.

The opinion states that, pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, it is unpublished and not precedent except as allowed by that rule.

The Fifth Circuit held that §1326(b)’s use of prior convictions as sentencing factors is permissible because the Supreme Court in Almendarez‑Torres decided such facts are not elements for Apprendi purposes.

The court rejected the argument that Almendarez‑Torres would be overruled by Apprendi, emphasizing that the precedent remains controlling, so Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s challenge could not proceed.

The Fifth Circuit assumed arguendo that the waiver provision in Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s plea agreement did not bar the appeal, allowing the court to consider his constitutional challenge.

The panel emphasized that Almendarez‑Torres remains good law and cited Garza‑Lopez as authority for applying the rule, thereby foreclosing any contrary argument.

The Fifth Circuit relied on Almendarez‑Torres, holding that Congress may make a prior conviction a sentencing factor, and affirmed that Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s challenge to §1326(b) was foreclosed.

Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s argument that Almendarez‑Torres should be overruled was rejected; the court held the precedent remained binding and therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment.

The government argued the waiver barred review; the Fifth Circuit expressly assumed, without deciding, that the waiver was not a bar and proceeded to address the Almendarez‑Torres precedent.

After finding Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s constitutional challenge foreclosed, the court entered an affirmation of the judgment of the district court.

The court relied on Almendarez‑Torres, which holds that Congress may make a prior conviction a sentencing factor. Because the Supreme Court said such facts are not elements, the Fifth Circuit concluded the Apprendi jury‑finding requirement does not apply.

The Fifth Circuit noted that Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s challenge to § 1326(b) is barred by Almendarez‑Torres, which remains binding precedent; therefore the district court’s judgment could be affirmed despite the defendant’s argument that the rule should be overruled.

The opinion assumed, without deciding, that the waiver provision in Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s plea agreement did not bar review, allowing the court to address the constitutional issue despite the Government’s standing argument.

The court held that Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s challenge to 8 U.S.C. §1326(b) is foreclosed because the Supreme Court in *Almendarez‑Torres* permits prior convictions to count only as sentencing factors, a view the Fifth Circuit follows.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s conviction because his argument that *Almendarez‑Torres* should be overruled was rejected; the precedent remains binding, so the challenge to § 1326(b) is barred.

The Fifth Circuit relied on Almendarez‑Torres, holding that § 1326(b) treats a defendant’s earlier felony convictions as sentencing factors, which does not trigger the Apprendi requirement that any fact increasing the statutory maximum be proved to a jury.

The court found Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s challenge to § 1326(b) barred by Almendarez‑Torres, rejected his argument that the decision should be overruled, and therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment.

The Fifth Circuit reiterated that Almendarez‑Torres is controlling law, rejecting the notion that Apprendi would cause it to be overruled, and therefore applied the rule.

The opinion assumed, arguendo, that the waiver in Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s plea agreement did not preclude review, illustrating that a waiver must be plain‑and‑clear to foreclose appellate consideration.

Rodriguez‑Cuellar argued that §1326(b) violated Apprendi because it treated his earlier conviction as a sentencing factor. The Fifth Circuit relied on Almendarez‑Torres and held that Congress may designate prior convictions as sentencing factors, so the Apprendi rule does not apply.

The court held that Rodriguez‑Cuellar’s challenge to §1326(b) was barred by Almendarez‑Torres. It rejected his argument that the Supreme Court would overrule that precedent in light of Apprendi and affirmed the district court’s judgment.