United States of America v. Juan Ibarra-Garcia

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued December 16, 2025
Decided December 31, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3319
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN IBARRA-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:23-CR-00272(1)
Andrea R. Wood,
Judge.
O R D E R
Juan Ibarra-Garcia pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States as a
previously removed noncitizen and was sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, he argues that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Because
precedent forecloses Ibarra-Garcia’s argument, we affirm.
Ibarra-Garcia, a Mexican citizen, was present in the United States in May 2018
without authorization. He previously entered the United States and was removed on
four separate occasions between 1992 and 2011.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-3319 Page 2
Ibarra-Garcia was charged with one count of reentry of a removed immigrant
under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The indictment cited § 1326(a), which prohibits the entry of an
immigrant who has been removed and carries a statutory maximum penalty of 2 years’
imprisonment. It also cited § 1326(b)(2), which allows for a penalty of up to 20 years’
imprisonment for an immigrant whose removal followed a conviction for an
aggravated felony. The indictment did not cite § 1326(b)(1), which allows for a penalty
of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for an immigrant whose removal followed convictions
for three or more misdemeanors or a non-aggravated felony. Ibarra-Garcia pleaded
guilty.
During the sentencing hearing, the district judge heard argument on the
applicable statutory maximum term of imprisonment. The parties agreed that
§ 1326(b)(2), the criminal penalty provision for a prior aggravated felony, did not apply.
And Ibarra-Garcia did not contest that he had a qualifying non-aggravated felony
under § 1326(b)(1). But he argued that § 1326(b)(1)’s 10-year statutory maximum did not
apply because it was not charged in the indictment. Instead, he asserted, the statutory
maximum was 2 years’ imprisonment as specified in § 1326(a), which was charged in
the indictment. The government argued that the 10-year statutory maximum in
§ 1326(b)(1) applied, even though it was not charged in the indictment.
The district judge agreed with the government that the applicable statutory
maximum was 10 years. She determined that Ibarra-Garcia’s guidelines range was 46 to
57 months, which did not need to be adjusted based on the statutory maximum. She
imposed 46 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Ibarra-Garcia maintains that his sentence exceeded the statutory
maximum of 2 years under § 1326(a). He contends that because § 1326(b)(1) was not
charged in his indictment, its 10-year statutory maximum did not apply. But he
recognizes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
224 (1998). He therefore seeks only to preserve his argument for review by the Supreme
Court.
In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that subsection (b) of § 1326 merely
authorizes an enhanced penalty for immigrants with a prior conviction and is not a
separate crime from subsection (a). 523 U.S. at 231–32, 235. Because it is a penalty
provision, not a separate crime, it does not need to be charged in the indictment. Id.
at 226–27. Almendarez-Torres remains binding precedent. See Erlinger v. United States,
602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024). Accordingly, we must continue to apply the rule stated in
Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Bock, 312 F.3d 829, 831–32 (7th Cir. 2002) (“It is not

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-3319 Page 3
out of the question that the issue might be reexamined by the Supreme Court. But that
is not for us to say, nor is it for us today to predict which direction any reexamination
might take.”). By pressing this argument on appeal, Ibarra-Garcia has preserved it for
further review.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --