United States v. Mena Bonilla

Case: 24-50952 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 24-50952

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 11, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Ernesto Ismael Mena Bonilla,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CR-1248-1

______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Ernesto Ismael Mena Bonilla appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), arguing that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and the Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance Case: 24-50952 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2025

No. 24-50952 or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Mena Bonilla takes no position on the motion.

The parties are correct that the 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)). Summary affirmance is therefore 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.