USCA4 Appeal: 21-4603 Doc: 50 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4603 Doc: 50 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mynor Esau Jandres Flores appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after removal,

in violation of

(a). He argues on appeal that

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,

(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