United States v. Garza-De La Cruz, 16 F.4th 1213

Jose Garza‑De La Cruz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
The base § 1326 offense carries a 2‑year statutory maximum; a prior felony conviction raises the statutory maximum to 10 years under § 1326(b)(1).
At sentencing the district court applied the 10‑year maximum based on a prior felony and sentenced Garza‑De La Cruz to 50 months’ imprisonment.
Garza‑De La Cruz argued the higher statutory maximum is unconstitutional under Apprendi because the fact of a prior conviction increasing the penalty was not alleged in the indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
He conceded the issue is foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit by Almendarez‑Torres; the Government moved for summary affirmance and the court granted it, affirming the sentence.
Concurring judges issued a separate opinion defending litigants’ choice to preserve constitutional claims for potential Supreme Court review and declining to admonish counsel for doing so.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior‑conviction enhancement that raises the statutory maximum must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury (Apprendi issue)	Government: Enhancement is permissible under the Almendarez‑Torres exception; prior conviction can be found at sentencing	Garza‑De La Cruz: Enhancement unconstitutional because not alleged in indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Issue foreclosed by Almendarez‑Torres; summary affirmance and sentence affirmed
Whether preserving and litigating such Apprendi‑style claims is improper when precedent forecloses relief	Government sought summary affirmance and urged disposition	Garza‑De La Cruz preserved the claim for possible Supreme Court reconsideration	Concurring judges: Preservation is reasonable and appropriate; counsel should not be admonished for preserving claims

Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (holds prior‑conviction exception to Apprendi requirement)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (requires jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt for any fact that increases statutory maximum)
United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2014) (Fifth Circuit precedent recognizing Almendarez‑Torres)
United States v. Rojas‑Luna, 522 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2008) (Fifth Circuit decision applying Almendarez‑Torres)
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969) (standard for summary affirmance motions)
United States v. Pineda‑Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2007) (discusses litigants preserving claims foreclosed by binding precedent)
Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2019) (recognizes litigating in anticipation of legal change)
Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (1994) (habeas principles on failure to raise claims on direct review)