United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez

Case: 24-10809 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10809

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 7, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Edgar Martinez-Rodriguez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CR-434-1 ______________________________

Before Davis, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Edgar Martinez-Rodriguez appeals following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because its application allowed a supervised release term above the statutory maximum based on facts that were neither Case: 24-10809 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2025

No. 24-10809 alleged in the indictment, found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, nor admitted by him. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time in which to file an appellate brief. As Martinez-Rodriguez concedes, his argument 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); see also Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024) (explaining that Almendarez-Torres “persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Summary affirmance is thus appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.