United States v. Ramirez-Rodriguez

Case: 24-50558 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50558

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 24, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Mauricio Ramirez-Rodriguez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-1176-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Mauricio Ramirez-Rodriguez appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), arguing for the first time on appeal that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and the Government has filed a Case: 24-50558 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2025

No. 24-50558 motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Ramirez-Rodriguez takes no position on the motion. The parties are correct that Ramirez-Rodriguez’s argument is foreclosed. 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)). Therefore, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the 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.