United States v. Sanchez-Felix

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: September 16, 2024
• Docket: 22-1188
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 22-1188 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 16, 2024 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 22-1188 (D.C. No. 1:21-CR-00310-PAB-1) CARLOS GUADALUPE SANCHEZ- (D. Colo.) FELIX, a/k/a Carlos Felix-Sanchez,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Carlos Guadalupe Sanchez-Felix, a federal prisoner, challenges his

conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326, Illegal Reentry After Removal from

the United States. He was charged under § 1326 in the United States District

Court for the District of Colorado. After the district court denied his motion to

*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 22-1188 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 2

dismiss, he entered a conditional guilty plea to preserve his right to appeal. We

have jurisdiction over the final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

On appeal, Sanchez-Felix raises one issue: he argues that § 1326 is

unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

because it was enacted with a racially discriminatory intent and has a

disparate impact on Latinos. But as he acknowledges, we recently rejected this

same argument in United States v. Amador-Bonilla, 102 F.4th 1110 (10th Cir.

2024). There, we held that “8 U.S.C. § 1326 does not violate the Fifth

Amendment.” Id. at 1113. In doing so, we joined “four of our sister circuits that

have upheld 8 U.S.C. § 1326 against challenges on the same grounds.” Id.

We are bound to follow this published opinion unless a contrary Supreme

Court or en banc opinion from our Circuit overrules Amador-Bonilla’s holding.

United States v. Baker, 49 F.4th 1348, 1358 (10th Cir. 2022). Indeed, Sanchez-

Felix agrees that we are bound to affirm the district court; he states that his

appeal is only to preserve his argument. As a result, we end our analysis and

affirm the district court. See United States v. McCranie, 889 F.3d 677, 678 n.3

(10th Cir. 2018) (explaining that when a defendant “preserves” an “issue

pending en banc or Supreme Court review[,]” we “address it no further”).

2 Appellate Case: 22-1188 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 3

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge