53 F.4th 859
5th Cir.2022Background
- Border Patrol found Yobani Barcenas‑Rumualdo near the U.S.–Mexico border on July 21, 2020; he admitted to being a Mexican citizen with no authorization and had two prior removals.
- Indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for unlawful reentry after removal; he moved to dismiss alleging the statute is tainted by racial animus dating to the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 and disproportionately impacts Mexican/Latino individuals.
- District court denied the motion to dismiss, applying Arlington Heights factors to the INA‑era enactment of § 1326 and concluding later amendments removed any original discriminatory taint.
- Bench trial on stipulated facts resulted in conviction; PSR range was 30–37 months and 1–3 years supervised release.
- District court sentenced Barcenas‑Rumualdo to 30 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ non‑reporting supervised release, basing the supervised‑release term solely on allowing time to appeal.
- On appeal the Government conceded the supervised‑release rationale was improper; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated and remanded the supervised‑release term for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Barcenas‑Rumualdo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violates the Fifth Amendment equal protection component | §1326 is facially neutral and rationally related to legitimate immigration/enforcement interests | §1326 is built on racially discriminatory origins (UAA) and has disparate impact on Mexican/Latino people, so it is unconstitutional under Arlington Heights | Affirmed: §1326 is constitutional; defendant failed to prove discriminatory purpose in the enactment/amendments under Arlington Heights; statute survives even rational‑basis review |
| Whether district court failed to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities | Sentencing court considered and rejected disparity argument; within‑Guidelines sentence need not have extensive explanation | Sentencing disparity with co‑defendant (cousin) warranted a downward variance | Affirmed: court addressed disparity argument adequately; no procedural error in explanation |
| Whether district court erred by imposing supervised release based on appellate timing | (conceded) Timing of appeal is not a proper §3553(a) factor for supervised release | Court relied solely on the appeal clock to set 3 years supervised release, making the sentence procedurally unreasonable | Vacated and remanded: district court abused discretion by relying on appeal timing; supervised‑release term must be reconsidered |
| Whether court failed to consider Sentencing Guidelines’ policy disfavoring supervised release for deportable defendants | Gov't did not concede this point on appeal | Barcenas‑Rumualdo argued court ignored policy disfavoring supervised release for deportable defendants | Not reached on appeal because of remand on the appellate‑timing error |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework to prove discriminatory purpose for facially neutral laws)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (Fifth Amendment contains an equal‑protection component prohibiting invidious discrimination)
- Harness v. Watson, 47 F.4th 296 (5th Cir. 2022) (look to most recent enactment and apply Arlington Heights factors)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentences and requirement to consider §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2013) (a within‑Guidelines sentence may be unreasonable if based on irrelevant factors)
- United States v. Villanueva‑Diaz, 634 F.3d 844 (5th Cir. 2011) (appeal of a conviction is not mooted by the end of supervised release)