Case: 23-50554 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50554 consolidated with FILED No. 23-50555 March 27, 2024 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Darlin Antonio Munoz-Perdomo, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:23-CR-80-1, 4:19-CR-205-1 ______________________________ Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Darlin Antonio Munoz-Perdomo appeals his conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), as well as the revocation of the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. He argues that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50554 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2024

No. 23-50554 c/w No. 23-50555 statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because Munoz-Perdomo does not address the revocation or the revocation sentence, he has abandoned any challenge to them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

With respect to his new illegal-reentry conviction, Munoz-Perdomo has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief correctly conceding that the only issue he raises is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). He explains that he has raised the issue to preserve it for possible further review. Accordingly, because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Munoz-Perdomo’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.