United States of America v. Apolonio Guerrero-Munoz

Background Apolonio Guerrero-Munoz appealed the sentence imposed after his conviction for illegal entry into the United States. He argued that the sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C. Section 1326(b) is unconstitutional, while conceding that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States and raising it to preserve the issue for possible further review. The Government moved for summary affirmance, or alternatively for an extension of time to file a merits brief, and Guerrero-Munoz took no position on summary affirmance. The court’s reasoning The Fifth Circuit concluded that the parties were correct that Guerrero-Munoz’s argument is foreclosed by precedent and that summary affirmance was appropriate. The panel relied on Almendarez-Torres as recognized in later cases, including Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court authority stating that the decision remains a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Because the constitutional challenge was foreclosed, the court granted summary affirmance and did not require full merits briefing. The parties are correct that the argument is foreclosed and that summary affirmance is appropriate. What it means going forward In the Fifth Circuit, defendants challenging the constitutionality of the Section 1326(b) enhancement remain bound by Almendarez-Torres unless the Supreme Court changes the law. The decision also shows the court may resolve such preserved but foreclosed arguments through summary affirmance.