UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MIGUEL QUINTANILLADOMINGUEZ, a/k/a Luis F. LopezMontez, a/k/a Cesar Rodriguez, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 22-1198 

(D.C. No. 1:21-CR-00406-RM-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

The Government indicted Defendant Miguel Quintanilla-Dominguez on one 

count of illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. Invoking Arlington Heights, Defendant 

argued the facially neutral § 1326 nevertheless violates the Equal Protection Clause 

because Congress enacted it with the purpose of discriminating against Latin American 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 18, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-1198 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 1
2 

immigrants. Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 

(1977). The district court disagreed and denied Defendant’s motion. The court 

concluded § 1326 should properly be reviewed under the rational basis test and held it 

withstood constitutional scrutiny. Alternatively, assuming Arlington Heights applied, 

the court held Defendant’s legislative history evidence was insufficient to show 

Congress acted with discriminatory intent. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea 

preserving his right to appeal this issue. Defendant then appealed the district court’s 

denial of his motion to dismiss. We abated his appeal pending decision in United States 

v. Amador-Bonilla, 102 F.4th 1110 (10th Cir. 2024). 

We conclude Defendant’s claim is foreclosed by Amador-Bonilla. In AmadorBonilla, we rejected an Equal Protection challenge to § 1326 on the same grounds 

Defendant asserts here. We left open the question whether to apply rational basis 

scrutiny or the Arlington Heights framework and held § 1326 satisfies both tests. Id. 

at 1115. First, applying the rational basis test, we held the defendant failed to prove 

no rational basis exists for enacting § 1326. Id. at 1116. Likewise, Defendant here 

makes no argument that § 1326 lacks a rational basis. Second, applying Arlington 

Heights, we concluded the defendant’s legislative history evidence failed to show 

Congress enacted § 1326 with racial malice. Id. at 1118—19. We see no meaningful 

difference between Defendant and Amador-Bonilla’s evidence. Accordingly, we are 

Appellate Case: 22-1198 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 2
3 

bound by the panel’s decision. The district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion 

to dismiss is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-1198 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 3