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 af ter deportation, in violati on of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Defendant moved to dismis s the indictment. Invoking Arlington Heights , Defendant argued the facially neutral § 1326 neverthele ss violates the Equal Protection Clause because Congress enacted it with the purpose of discriminating ag ainst Latin American

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel 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 This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 12 immigrants. Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. , 429 U.S. 252 (1977). The district court disagreed a nd denied Defendant’s motion. The court concluded § 1326 should properly be review ed under the rational ba sis test and held it withstood constitutional scrutiny. Alternatively, assuming Arlington Heights applied, the court held Defendant’s legislative hi story 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 ch allenge to § 1326 on the same grounds Defendant asserts here. We left open th e 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. Likewi se, Defendant here makes no argument that § 1326 lacks a rational basis. Second, applying Arlington Heights , we concluded the defendant’s legislat ive 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. Acco rdingly, we are Appellate Case: 22-1198 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 23 bound by the panel’s decision. The district court’s orde r 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