UNITED STATES v. CONTRERAS ROJAS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-10-29No. No. 21-50500

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, granting the government's motion for summary affirmance and denying the government's alternative request for additional time to file a brief.

Fernando Contreras-Rojas challenged his sentence enhancement for illegal reentry, arguing that the enhancement based on a prior conviction violated constitutional requirements because the prior conviction was neither alleged in the indictment nor submitted to a jury. The defendant acknowledged that his argument was foreclosed by established Supreme Court precedent. The appellate court found that under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, prior convictions used for sentencing enhancements need not be alleged or proven to a jury, and that subsequent decisions like Apprendi and Alleyne did not change this rule. The court emphasized that challenges to Almendarez-Torres have been repeatedly rejected over many years and that future such arguments would face skepticism.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether prior convictions used in sentencing enhancements must be alleged in an indictment
Whether prior convictions must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether Almendarez-Torres survives subsequent Supreme Court precedent on jury trial rights

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed his sentence imposed following a guilty plea for illegal reentry, challenging the constitutional validity of a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Fernando Contreras-Rojas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. The sole argument Contreras-Rojas raises on appeal is that the enhancement of his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) is unconstitutional because the fact of a prior conviction was neither found by a jury nor alleged in the indictment. He acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he wishes to preserve the issue for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief.

Almendarez-Torres held that a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement. 523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See, e.g., United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Contreras-Rojass concession of foreclosure is correct, and summary judgment is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Over fourteen years ago, this court opined that appeals based on Almendarez-Torres are virtually all frivolous. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007). After hundreds, if not thousands, more cases challenging Almendarez-Torres, we reiterate and reaffirm our statement that “[i]n the future, barring new developments in Supreme Court jurisprudence, arguments seeking reconsideration of Almendarez-Torres will be viewed with skepticism.” Id. at 626. We urge “appellants and their counsel not to damage their credibility with this court by asserting non-debatable arguments.” Id. at 626. We meant it then and mean it now.

The Governments motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Governments alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district courts judgment is AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam: