United States of America v. Mynor Esau Jandres Flores

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4603
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MYNOR ESAU JANDRES FLORES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Retired District Judge. (1:21-cr-00168-TSE-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Ann Mason
Rigby, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph Attias, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Daniel J. Honold, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mynor Esau Jandres Flores appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after removal,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues on appeal that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is
unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
Specifically, Flores maintains that § 1326 was enacted with a racially discriminatory
purpose and that the law has had a discriminatory effect. The Government moves for
summary affirmance in light of our recent decision in United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 98
F.4th 90 (4th Cir. 2024), in which we sustained the constitutionality of § 1326 against the
same argument raised by Flores.
The Government contends that Flores’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by
Sanchez-Garcia and, thus, is “manifestly unsubstantial.” See 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(1). Flores
concedes that Sanchez-Garcia forecloses his constitutional challenge but maintains that
Sanchez-Garcia was wrongly decided and that he seeks to preserve his claim for future
litigation. Because the only issue raised in Flores’s appeal is foreclosed by our decision in
Sanchez-Garcia, we grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance, and we
affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --