United States of America versus Francisco Rodriguez-Saldana

Background Rodriguez-Saldana appealed after his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. Section 1326(a) and (b). For the first time on appeal, he argued that the sentencing enhancement in Section 1326(b) is unconstitutional. The government moved for summary affirmance, and Rodriguez-Saldana acknowledged that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres while seeking to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. The court’s reasoning The panel said the parties were correct that Rodriguez-Saldana’s sole argument is foreclosed. It relied on Almendarez-Torres, as recognized in Fifth Circuit precedent and in Erlinger, which described Almendarez-Torres as a narrow exception allowing judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Because the only issue raised was controlled by binding precedent, the court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate. Almendarez-Torres “persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction” Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024) What it means going forward In the Fifth Circuit, defendants challenging the constitutionality of the Section 1326(b) enhancement based on prior convictions remain bound by Almendarez-Torres unless the Supreme Court changes the law. The decision also shows the court may use summary affirmance when the only appellate issue is plainly foreclosed by precedent.